A classification tree approach for improving the utilization of flow cytometry testing of blood specimens for B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoproliferative disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We sought to improve the diagnostic efficiency of flow cytometry investigation on blood by developing data-driven ordering guidelines. Our goal was to improve flow cytometry utilization by decreasing negative testing, therefore reducing healthcare costs. We investigated several laboratory tests performed alongside flow cytometry to identify biomarkers useful in excluding non-leukemic bloods. Test results and patient demographic features were subjected to receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curve, logistic regression and classification tree analyses to find significant predictors and develop decision rules. Our data show that, in the absence of a compelling clinical indication, flow cytometry testing is largely non-informative on bloods from patients less than 50 years of age having an absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) below 5.0 × 10(9)/L. For patients over age 50 having an ALC below this value, a ferritin value above 450 μg/L is counter-indicative of B-cell clonality. Using these guidelines, 26% of cases were correctly predicted as negative with greater than 97% accuracy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".