Cytogenetic Analysis in Mantle Cell Lymphoma: A Review of 214 Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cytogenetic (CG) analysis was performed in 78 consecutive cases of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) at the British Columbia Cancer Agency (BCCA). A clone containing a t(11;14) translocation was identified in 53 cases. Data from 47 cases with sufficient CG details were reviewed along with 167 cases of t(11; 14)-associated lymphoproliferative diseases (LPD) from the literature. Common aneuploidies included -Y, -13, -9, -18, +3 and +12. Common structural changes included: +3q, +12q, del(6q), del(1p), del(13q), del(10q), del(11q), del(9p) and del(17p). The commonest breakpoints clusters were 1p21-22, 1p31-32, 1q21, 6q11-q15, 6q23-25, 8q24, 9p21-24, 11q13-23, 13q12-14, and 17p12-13. When analyzed separately as lymph node-based disease (LN group) and peripheral blood disease (PB group), deletions and chromosomal losses were more common in the LN group, while gains of chromosome segments 3q and 12q were similar. The LN group was cytogenetically more complex. CG analysis is useful for confirming the diagnosis of MCL. Almost all cases will have t(11; 14), but poor quality and number of metaphases may render a difficult analysis. CG evolution in MCL follows a complex but defined pattern. Regions affected by recurrent changes are similar to other B cell lymphomas. The LN and PB groups of t(11;14)-associated LPD may have subtle differences in clonal evolution.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".