MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Diagnosis of Fanconi Anemia By Chromosome Breakage Tests Using 3 Different Scoring Systems and Whole Genome Sequencing Among Patients with Aplastic Anemia in Korean

2015· article· en· W2603206339 on OpenAlexaff
Si Nae Park, Nam Hee Kim, Kyongok Im, Jee Soo Lee, Sungbin Choi, Dong Soon Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAplastic anemiaFanconi anemiaBone marrow failureMedicineBone marrowAnemiaChromosome instabilityGastroenterologyPathologyInternal medicineChromosomeBiologyGeneticsHaematopoiesisDNA repairGeneStem cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUD: Fanconi anemia (FA), an inherited bone marrow failure syndrome with impaired DNA repair system, is characterized by cytopenias, congenital abnormalities, and predisposition to malignancy as a consequence of chromosomal instability and hypersensitivity to DNA interstrand cross-linking agents. Differential diagnosis of FA and aplastic anemia requires integrated work-up including physical findings, bone marrow histologic findings and chromosome breakage test. Yet, there have been no consensus criteria for chromosome breakage test, which depend on each laboratory's own decision. The aim of our study was 1) to investigate the incidence of FA showing positive results for chromosome breakage test among patients diagnosed with aplastic anemia, and 2) to investigate the frequency of the gene mutations related to inherited bone marrow failure syndrome in patients with aplastic anemia. In addition to chromosome breakage test, we performed whole genome sequencing with bone marrow mononuclear cells in 18 pediatric patients with aplastic anemia whose bone marrow specimen was available. METHOD: We reviewed total 79 chromosome breakage tests from 67 patients who had been on suspicion of aplastic anemia between May 2005 and April 2015. MMC and DEB stress test were performed at concentration of 50ng/mL and 100ng/mL both on peripheral blood of suspicious patients and normal controls, respectively. The scoring of chromosome breakages test was performed, based on widely used 3 different scoring systems: those proposed by Jean Soulier, Barch MJ, and Arleen D. Auerbach. In each cases, we applied 3 different scoring systems and compared the concordance rate. In 16 among 67 patients, we performed whole genome sequencing. RESULTS: The median age of the pediatric patients was 11years (range, 7months - 19 years) and the male-to-female ratio was 1.39:1. Of 67 enrolled patients, 8 had been tested twice or 3 times because of ambiguous results. In these cases, we chose the last results. Five of 67 patients satisfied the all three criteria mentioned above, which shows 7.5% (5/67) of positive rates. Other 3 of 67 patients met only one or more of Soulier's prerequisites. Among those, one fulfilled both Barch MJ's system and Aeurbach's, and remain 2 patients were positive in each system, respectively. Mutation variants of BMF syndrome related genes were detected in 25% (4/16 patients); RPS19 (1 patient), PAX5 (1 patient), and FANC (3 patient). Inherited predisposition to myeloid leukemia related genes were detected in 56.3% (9/16 patients) and gene variants were MSH6 (5 patients), ATM (2 patients), PMS2 (1 patients), and MLH1 (1 patients). Coexisting somatic mutations of oncogene (ERB2) was detected in 6.3% (1/16 patients). Among 3 patients with fanconi anemia gene mutations, 2 patients showed positive results for chromosome breakage test and the other1patient showed negative results for chromosome breakage test. CONCLUSION: The frequency of FA based on chromosome breakage test among patients with pancytopenia suspicious of aplastic anemia was 7.5% by Soulier's prerequisites, but 9.0% when based on either of 3 different criteria. Molecular testing can additionally detect FA in 4 (25.0%) among 16 patients showing negative result by chromosome breakage test. Our study shows it is necessary to standardize a diagnostic scoring system as well as to develop complementary molecular test for accurate diagnosis of FA. 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicDNA Repair Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→