Comparative Evaluation of Three<i>JAK2</i><sup>V617F</sup>Mutation Detection Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The correlation of JAK2V617F with a proportion of chronic myeloproliferative disorders has generated numerous studies focused on the development of molecular-based assays for JAK2V617F detection. The current parallel study comparatively evaluated 3 JAK2V617F molecular detection methods. Genomic DNA from blood or bone marrow was assayed by 3 laboratories using allele-specific polymerase chain reaction (AS-PCR) or kit-based restriction fragment length polymorphism methods, which used polyacrylamide gel or capillary electrophoresis analysis. In addition, samples were sequenced in 2 of the laboratories. Results found 100% concordance among the 3 methods, with analytic sensitivities of 5% for both kit methods and 0.01% for AS-PCR. The kitbased assays detect JAK2V617F with equal sensitivity regardless of analysis method, and, despite greater sensitivity of AS-PCR, all 3 methods yielded 100% concordant results for this 36-sample set. Consistent with other reports, direct sequencing was insufficiently sensitive to serve as an initial diagnostic tool for JAK2V617F detection.
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 | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".