MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Application of Spectral Density/Periodogram Analysis to Serial Neutrophil Counts to Diagnose Cyclic Neutropenia

2015· article· en· W2591576130 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas J Dobbins, Audrey Anna Bolyard, Robert T. Chang, Julian Self, Gabriel P. Langlois, Michael C. Mackey, David C. Dale

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBlood disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeutropeniaCyclic neutropeniaMedicineCongenital NeutropeniaMedical diagnosisAbsolute neutrophil countInternal medicinePediatricsPathologyChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Cyclic neutropenia is characterized by oscillatory fluctuations in blood neutrophil counts, usually with nadirs <0.2 x 109/L at approximately 3 week intervals. Visual inspection of graphs of serial counts is usually the basis for diagnosis. Detection of mutations in ELANE is helpful but not diagnostic because of the overlap of the specific mutation patterns with those associated with severe congenital neutropenia. Making the correct diagnosis of cyclic neutropenia is important because these patients are not thought to be at risk of developing myelodysplasia or acute myeloid leukemia (MDS/AML). In contrast, patients with severe congenital neutropenia, whose counts are usually lower, are at risk of developing MDS/AML. Methods: We have implemented a website application for easy and direct data entry of serial blood counts to detect statistically significant periodicities using the Lomb periodogram. Physicians, nurses, other healthcare providers or patients can directly enter the blood count data for analysis on a website to allow immediate visualization of the serial counts and calculation of the probability of statistically significant cycling and the period, i.e., length of the cycle. Results: We have analyzed the counts from 42 patients (21 ELANE positive, 8 ELANE negative, 13 ELANE unknown) enrolled in the Severe Chronic Neutropenia International Registry with a clinical diagnosis of cyclic neutropenia to determine the accuracy of clinical diagnoses based on this form of statistical analysis. Our preliminary results showed that it is easy to learn how to use this program. We estimate that at least 20 counts obtained at 2-3 day intervals for 6 weeks are the minimum needed to detect cyclic neutropenia on a statistically sound basis, while 20-40 counts obtained at 2-3 day intervals over an 8-10 week period was more likely to yield statistical and clinical certainty about the diagnosis. The figure below shows readouts for the periodogram analysis for one patient. It shows the influence of 17 counts versus 31 counts for a patient with the clinical diagnosis of cyclic neutropenia and a mutation in ELANE. The confidence intervals (95%) and (99%) are exceeded for the series of 31 counts but not for the shorter series. The peak, approximate cycle length is 22 days for this series of counts. As of yet, we do not have the sufficient daily count data to determine if more frequent testing (e.g. daily testing) is better than testing every 2-3 days. We are currently testing the patterns of neutrophil fluctuations in patients on G-CSF to see if cyclic neutropenia can be diagnosed in patients that are on (or during) treatment. We have learned that many patients with the clinical diagnosis of CyN do not have sufficient serial blood cell count data to confirm this diagnosis on a statistical basis. Conclusion: We have developed a simple method for making periodogram analysis much more widely available to clinicians and patients on a world-wide basis. Statistical analysis of carefully collected serial data will help to secure the diagnosis of cyclic neutropenia and provide patients with important prognostic information. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Dale: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicBlood disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207