Guideline for the diagnosis and management of myelofibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The guideline group regarding the diagnosis and management of myelofibrosis was selected to be representative of UK-based medical experts, together with a contribution from a single expert from the USA. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched systematically for publications in English from 1966 until August 2011 using a variety of key words. The writing group produced the draft guideline, which was subsequently revised by consensus of the members of the General Haematology and Haemato-oncology Task Forces of the British Committee for Standards in Haematology (BCSH). The guideline was then reviewed by a sounding board of UK haematologists, the BCSH and the British Society for Haematology Committee and comments incorporated where appropriate. The criteria used to state levels and grades of evidence are as outlined in the Procedure for Guidelines commissioned by the BCSH; the 'GRADE' system was used to score strength and quality of evidence. The objective of this guideline is to provide healthcare professionals with clear guidance on the investigation and management of primary myelofibrosis, as well as post-polycythaemic myelofibrosis (post-PV MF) and post-thrombocythemic myelofibrosis (post-ET MF) in both adult and paediatric patients.
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 | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
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".