Recommendations on haematological criteria for the diagnosis of epoetin‐induced pure red cell aplasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pure red cell aplasia (PRCA) is a rare condition characterised by an arrest in red blood cell production, which may be congenital or acquired. Recombinant human erythropoietin (epoetin) was introduced in 1989 for the treatment of anaemia of chronic kidney disease patients and has maintained an excellent therapeutic and safety record while treating hundreds of thousands of patients. A very rare, but serious adverse event associated with epoetin administration is a condition in which patients develop neutralising anti-erythropoietin antibodies and, consequently, PRCA. This condition is referred to as epoetin-induced PRCA (epo-PRCA). Since it is a rare condition, many haematologists and nephrologists around the world see the condition infrequently and may be uncertain about the diagnosis. For this reason, an ad hoc international working group of expert haematologists and nephrologists met together to derive new recommendations for the haematological diagnosis of epo-PRCA. These recommendations, which represent the consensus opinions of the working group, address haematological approaches to monitor and investigate suspected epo-PRCA and should help physicians differentiate between PRCA and other bone marrow diseases, as well as, between PRCA and epo-PRCA.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
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".