2006 Bethesda International Consensus Conference on Flow Cytometric Immunophenotyping of Hematolymphoid Neoplasia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The utility of flow cytometric analysis in leukemia and lymphoma gained acceptance in the late 1980s and now it is established medical practice in the diagnosis of hematolymphoid neoplasia. Evidence that flow cytometry is useful in prognostication and monitoring response to therapy in several diseases has also accumulated. As the utility of this technology achieved widespread recognition, new flow cytometry laboratories were created to add this valuable technique to the diagnostic arsenal available. Coincident with the evolution of this new field, was a growing concern among practitioners about inconsistent practices as well as deficiencies in technique standardization and validation and its possible impact on patient care. To address this issue a group of U.S. and Canadian hematopathologists, hematologists, and laboratory scientists met in Bethesda, MD from November 16–17, 1995 to develop the U.S.–Canadian Consensus Recommendations on the Immunophenotypic Analysis of Hematologic Neoplasia by Flow Cytometry. The consensus document produced provided guidance on standardization and validation of laboratory procedures, data analysis and interpretation and data reporting. Guidelines were also provided on medical indications for testing by listing diseases in which flow cytometric analysis contributed positively to patient care. Although consensus could not be reached at that time on the number or combination of antibodies utilized in flow cytometric evaluation of leukemia or lymphoma, strategies were provided for the selection of antibodies and lists of markers useful in identification of acute leukemias and lymphoproliferative processes. In 2000 the Clinical Cytometry Society organized a second, international, conference in an attempt to further standardize antibody choice. The participants reached consensus on the optimal number of reagents required to evaluate hematolymphoid neoplasia, but the recommendations were again based on disease diagnosis. In 2006 there was growing recognition of the need to set standards of training and education for practitioners in the field of flow cytometry, including technologists, interpreters, and laboratory directors. It was also realized that listing diseases in which flow cytometric analysis is medically indicated does not provide the type of practical guidelines needed in determining if this testing is indicated in any patient not yet diagnosed with hematolymphoid neoplasia. Medical indications for flow cytometric analysis that are based upon clinical signs and symptoms suggestive of hematolymphoid neoplasia are needed in the field. Similarly, guidelines on antibody panels recommended for patients presenting with specific signs and symptoms are desirable. To address these issues the Clinical Cytometry Society organized the 2006 Bethesda International Consensus Conference on Flow Cytometric Immunophenotyping of Hematolymphoid Neoplasia from July 14–15, 2006 in Bethesda, MD. The final consensus recommendations generated at this conference are presented in this issue.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it