Diagnosis of unexpected acute myeloid leukemia and chronic lymphocytic leukemia: A case report demonstrating the perils of restricted panels in flow cytometric immunophenotyping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report on the flow cytometric identification of concomitant acute myeloid leukemia and chronic lymphocytic leukemia in cytology specimens submitted with minimal clinical information. A 64-year-old man presented with fever and progressive dyspnea on exertion. Chest X-ray and computed tomography scan showed a left upper lobe pulmonary mass. Pulmonary capillary pullback specimens were collected to determine infectious verses neoplastic etiology. The pulmonary capillary pullback specimens showed atypical mononuclear cells with enlarged, slightly irregular nuclei; visible nucleoli; and basophilic cytoplasm. Flow cytometric analysis of the specimen for lymphoma was requested. Flow cytometric immunophenotypic studies showed that 78% of the cells were CD34 positive, CD45 dim positive and CD11c positive, consistent with acute myeloid leukemia. About 0. 75% of the cells expressed CD5 as well as dim CD20 and were monoclonal for kappa light chains: consistent with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma. At this time the clinician communicated a history of myelodysplastic syndrome of refractory anemia subtype. Peripheral blood was obtained for further immunophenotyping and the patient was immediately treated for his acute myeloid leukemia. This case demonstrates that a diagnostic antibody panel should allow evaluation of all cell types as per the U.S./Canadian consensus recommendations on the immunophenotypic analysis of hematologic neoplasia by flow cytometry (Stewart et al.: Cytometry 30:231-235, 1997). Published 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".