Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization and Cytogenetic Analysis in Pediatric Acute Leukemias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most patients with acute lymphocytic leukemia (all) are reported to have acquired chromosomal abnormalities in their leukemic bone marrow cells. Many established chromosome rearrangements have been described, and their associations with specific clinical, biologic, and prognostic features are well defined. However, approximately 30% of pediatric and 50% of adult patients with all do not have cytogenetic abnormalities of clinical significance. Despite significant improvements in outcome for pediatric all, therapy fails in approximately 25% of patients, and these failures often occur unpredictably in patients with a favorable prognosis and "good" cytogenetics at diagnosis.It is well known that karyotype analysis in hematologic malignancies, although genome-wide, is limited because of altered cell kinetics (mitotic rate), a propensity of leukemic blasts to undergo apoptosis in culture, overgrowth by normal cells, and chromosomes of poor quality in the abnormal clone. Array comparative genomic hybridization (acgh-"microarray") has a greatly increased genomic resolution over classical cytogenetics. Cytogenetic microarray, which uses genomic dna, is a powerful tool in the analysis of unbalanced chromosome rearrangements, such as copy number gains and losses, and it is the method of choice when the mitotic index is low and the quality of metaphases is suboptimal. The copy number profile obtained by microarray is often called a "molecular karyotype."In the present study, microarray was applied to 9 retrospective cases of pediatric all either with initial high-risk features or with at least 1 relapse. The conventional karyotype was compared to the "molecular karyotype" to assess abnormalities as interpreted by classical cytogenetics. Not only were previously undetected chromosome losses and gains identified by microarray, but several karyotypes interpreted by classical cytogenetics were shown to be discordant with the microarray results. The complementary use of microarray and conventional cytogenetics would allow for more sensitive, comprehensive, and accurate analysis of the underlying genetic profile, with concomitant improvement in prognosis and treatment, not only for pediatric all, but for neoplastic disorders in general.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".