Disease progression in recently diagnosed patients with inherited marrow failure syndromes: A Canadian inherited marrow failure registry (CIMFR) report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inherited bone marrow failure syndromes (IMFSs) are genetic disorders characterized by defective single-lineage or multi-lineage hematopoiesis. IMFS patients are at risk for severe cytopenias, development of marrow cytogenetic abnormalities (MCA), myelodysplasia (MDS), and malignancy. The rate of disease progression and proportion of patients at risk for these complications is currently unclear. We examined recently diagnosed IMFS patients to determine distribution of diagnoses, disease progression and development of significant outcomes. METHODS: The CIMFR is a prospective multi-center study established in 2001 to register all IMFS patients in Canada. Analysis was restricted to patients diagnosed after November 30, 1997. Summary statistics were used to depict the study population while survival was described using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: 74 CIMFR patients were considered recently diagnosed. Median age at diagnosis was 2.7 years (range, birth to 40.6). Annual follow-up data were available for 53 (72%) patients. The five most prevalent diagnoses were Fanconi anemia (FA), Shwachman-Diamond syndrome (SDS), Diamond-Blackfan anemia (DBA), dyskeratosis congenita (DKC), and Kostmann's neutropenia (KS). Eighteen (24%) patients were unclassifiable. Twenty-eight (53%) follow-up patients had disease progression as indicated by new or worsening cytopenias, new marrow changes, or initiation of transfusion support and/or medical therapy. Fourteen (19%) fulfilled minimal diagnostic criteria for myelodysplasia. Eleven patients had hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) by first follow-up. Five patients have died. Survival at 36 months is 89.8 +/- 5.7%. CONCLUSIONS: IMFS patients are often diagnosed at a young age. The relative distribution of diagnoses is similar to previous reviews of published cases; however, 25% of patients are currently unclassifiable. Disease progression has occurred in approximately 50% of follow-up patients. Early mortality is noted. Continued prospective observation of these patients is warranted.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".