MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Diagnosis and Treatment of Essential Thrombocythemia: Assessment of Current Clinical Practice.

2009· article· en· W2523935751 on OpenAlexaffabout
Vivian H. Y. Lee, Erica A. Peterson, Leslie Zypchen, Lynda Foltz

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEssential thrombocythemiaAnagrelideCohortBiopsyHematologistThrombosisMedical historyPediatricsInternal medicineSurgeryPolycythemia veraDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 1903 Poster Board I-926 Introduction: The discovery of the JAK2 V617F gene mutation has significantly altered the clinical diagnostic approach to the myeloproliferative neoplasms, reflected in the revised 2008 WHO diagnostic criteria. Both the 2001 and 2008 diagnostic criteria for essential thrombocythemia (ET) require a bone marrow biopsy showing megakaryocytic proliferation to make a diagnosis of ET. Published expert opinion based on clinical studies suggests that ET patients > 60 years old or with history of thrombosis should be characterized as high risk and treated with hydroxyurea. It is unclear whether physicians in clinical practice utilize the WHO diagnostic criteria or follow expert treatment recommendations for ET. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of all patients with a clinical diagnosis of ET made by a hematologist who were seen in clinic from 2006 to 2008 at two university teaching hospitals in Vancouver, Canada. Data collected included demographic information, thrombosis history, diagnostic tests performed and treatment administered. Testing for JAK2 V617F became locally available in 2006, so for assessment of diagnostic tests performed, patients were divided into cohorts of diagnosis pre-2006 and 2006–2008. Patients were characterized as high risk if > 60 y or history of thrombosis at the time of diagnosis. All other patients were considered low risk. Results: Diagnostic information was available for 116 patients diagnosed prior to the availability of testing for JAK2 V617F. 65% (75/116) of patients in this cohort had a bone marrow biopsy performed (table 1). 44 patients received a new diagnosis of ET from 2006–2008. Only 48% (21/44) patients in this cohort had a bone marrow biopsy performed, significantly less than in the historical cohort (p = 0.019). 41/44 had JAK2 V617F testing performed: 41% (17/41) were JAK2 V617F negative, 56% (23/41) positive and 1 equivocal. Bone marrow biopsy was performed in 59% (10/17) of JAK2 V617F negative patients and 39% (9/23) of JAK2 V617F positive patients (p = 0.055) (table 1). Bone marrow biopsy was also performed in 1 patient with equivocal JAK2 V617F testing and 1 patient not tested for JAK2 V617F. 170 patients diagnosed with ET were seen in follow up 2006–2008. 64% (109/170) were high risk due to age > 60 y or history of thrombosis. The remaining 36% (61/170) were considered low risk. Hydroxyurea was used preferentially over anagrelide for treatment of ET (table 2). Only 76% of high risk patients were receiving cytoreductive treatment. 23% of low risk patients received cytoreductive treatment. ASA was prescribed to 89% of high risk and 79% of low risk patients. Conclusion: Despite the requirement for a bone marrow biopsy to meet the WHO criteria for ET, hematologists performed a bone marrow biopsy in less than half of patients they diagnosed with ET since 2006. Hematologists performed bone marrow biopsy less frequently after JAK2 V617F testing became available, particularly in JAK2 V617F positive patients. A substantial portion of high risk patients (24%) were receiving no cytoreductive therapy, contrary to expert recommendation. Further study is required to understand the barriers to implementing treatment recommendations in clinical practice. This study highlights the challenges in translating published diagnostic criteria and treatment guidelines into changes in patient care. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.377 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207