MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2570090604 · doi:10.1182/blood.v108.11.502.502

Genotype-Phenotype Associations in Patients with Severe Congenital Neutropenia.

2006· article· en· W2570090604 on OpenAlexaff
Philip S. Rosenberg, Steven Stein, Elin Rodger, Audrey Anna Bolyard, Mary Ann Bonilla, Yigal Dror, George Kannourakis, Peter E. Newburger, Laurence A. Boxer, Blanche P. Alter, David C. Dale

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBlood disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineNeutropeniaGastroenterologyAbsolute neutrophil countCongenital NeutropeniaImmunologyChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND: G-CSF therapy has reduced sepsis mortality in patients with severe congenital neutropenia (SCN), revealing a syndromic predisposition to myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia (MDS/AML). The MDS/AML risk appears to be higher in SCN patients who are less-responsive to therapy; however, the genetic determinants of susceptibility remain to be elucidated. METHODS: We studied 82 North American and Australian patients with SCN on long-term G-CSF enrolled in the Severe Chronic Neutropenia International Registry. These patients had prospective follow-up, sufficient banked DNA for genotyping, and validated clinical data. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients (63%) were positive for germline mutations in neutrophil elastase (ELA2); the remaining 30 patients (37%) had no detectable mutations. Prior to G-CSF therapy, blood cell counts were significantly different between ELA2 positive and negative patients. Compared with ELA2 positive patients, ELA2 negative patients had significantly higher median absolute neutrophil count (ANC) values (158 versus 53 cells/uL, P=0.02), significantly lower monocyte and eosinophil counts (P<0.001), and significantly lower platelet counts (P=0.002). ELA2 negative patients were maintained on significantly lower doses of G-CSF (5.2 versus 9.9 ug/kg/day, P=0.02), consistent with higher baseline ANC values. However, ELA2 negative patients were significantly less responsive to G-CSF therapy. Compared with ELA2 positive patients, on therapy, ELA2 negative patients had significantly smaller median increases in ANC values (1200 versus 2700 cells/uL, P=0.02); the difference remained significant after controlling for individual G-CSF dose (P=0.04). ELA2 negative patients had 5 MDS/AML events in 132 person-years, versus 8 MDS/AML events in 373 person-years among ELA2 positive patients. Using the Cox proportional hazards model, the hazard of MDS/AML was 3.1-fold higher in ELA2 negative patients compared with ELA2 positive patients. This association was of borderline statistical significance (P=0.08). No patient in either group died of sepsis. We found 34 distinct mutations in 52 ELA2 positive patients. The mutation sites were not clustered in the 8 ELA2 positive patients who developed MDS/AML. We found no associations of phenotype or outcome with specific ELA2 mutations; however, the numbers were limited. CONCLUSIONS: SCN patients without mutations in ELA2 constitute a clinically distinct subgroup. ELA2 negative patients are significantly less responsive to G-CSF therapy than ELA2 positive patients, and they may be at substantially higher risk of leukemia. Additional studies are needed to confirm the latter association and identify the causative gene or genes.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.177 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicBlood disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207