Routine bone marrow examination in the initial evaluation of paediatric Hodgkin lymphoma: the Canadian perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bone marrow examination (BME) in paediatric Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) was evaluated, as evidence from adult HL suggests it may be unnecessary. An internet-based survey was used to examine the practice of Canadian paediatric oncologists regarding BME in children and the impact of routine BME was evaluated in patients with HL treated at our institution. Sixteen of 17 paediatric oncology centres were represented. Forty-three percent of eligible doctors completed the survey. Routine BME for stages III and IV disease was consistent nationally. By contrast, 54% and 70% of respondents reported performing routine BME for stages I and II HL respectively. Respondents were more likely to report performing routine BME in low-stage HL if trained outside Canada (P = 0.04, stage I; P = 0.07, stage II) or practicing at smaller centres (P = 0.05, stage I; P = 0.03, stage II). At our institution, 62 patients were eligible for analysis. Only four patients (6.5%) had a positive BME. Anaemia was the only significant risk factor (P = 0.006). No patient with otherwise low stage was found to have marrow involvement. Comparison of staging with and without BME demonstrated no significant difference to final risk classification. BME in paediatric patients with low-stage HL has extremely low yield and may be unnecessary.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".