A blinded study of bone marrow examinations in patients with primary immune thrombocytopenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The role of bone marrow examinations in patients with primary immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is uncertain. The objectives of this study were to determine the inter-rater reliability of bone marrow examinations and to identify distinguishing morphological features of ITP bone marrows under controlled conditions. METHODS: Histological slides of bone marrow biopsy specimens and aspirates from 32 adult patients with severe primary ITP who had failed a median of two treatments, and 51 non-thrombocytopenic controls were retrieved from hospital archives. Slides were arranged in random order in a slide box and coded. Blinded to the diagnosis and platelet counts, three independent hematopathologists were asked to identify the ITP bone marrows and to evaluate megakaryocyte number, morphology, and distribution. RESULTS: Overall chance-corrected agreement on ITP classification among the three raters was poor [kappa (κ) = 0.30; 95% confidence interval 0.22-0.38]. Raters were generally unable to correctly identify the ITP bone marrows from controls. Increased number of megakaryocytes, while an uncommon finding, was more frequent among ITP patients compared with controls (6/32, 18.8%; vs. 2/51, 3.9%; P = 0.05), and abnormal megakaryocyte morphology often led individual raters to reach a diagnosis of ITP. Overall sensitivity and specificity of bone marrow examinations were 24% and 90%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms methodologically that bone marrow examinations are unreliable and frequently non-diagnostic in ITP. Thus, they are not useful for patients with typical disease. Rare subsets of patients with severe ITP demonstrated unique features such as increased number of megakaryocytes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".