Radar plots facilitate differential diagnosis of acute promyelocytic leukemia and NPM1+ acute myeloid leukemia by flow cytometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) is one of the most life-threatening hematological emergencies and requires a prompt correct diagnosis by cytomorphology and flow cytometry (FCM) with later confirmation by cytogenetics/molecular genetics. However, nucleophosmin 1 muted acute myeloid leukemia (NPM1+ AML) can mimic APL, especially the hypogranular variant of APL. Our study aimed to develop a novel, Radar plot-based FCM strategy to distinguish APLs and NPM1+ AMLs quickly and accurately. METHOD: Diagnostic samples from 52 APL and 32 NPM1+ AMLs patients were analyzed by a 3-tube panel of 10-color FCM. Radar plots combining all markers were constructed for each tube. Percentages of positive leukemic cells and mean fluorescence intensity were calculated for all the markers. RESULTS: APL showed significantly higher expression of CD64, CD2, and CD13, whereas more leukemic cells were positive for CD11b, CD11c, CD15, CD36, and HLA-DR in NPM1+ AMLs. Radar plots featured CD2 expression, a lack of a monocytic component, lack of expression of HLA-DR and CD15, and a lack of a prominent CD11c+ population as recurring characteristics of APL. The presence of blasts with low SSC, presence of at least some monocytes, some expression of HLA-DR and/or CD15, and a prominent CD11c population were recurrent characteristics of NPM1+ AMLs. Radar plot analysis could confidently separate all hypergranular APL cases from any NPM1+ AML and in 90% of cases between variant APL and blastic NPM1+ AML. CONCLUSION: Radar plots can potentially add to differential diagnostics as they exhibit characteristic patterns distinguishing APL and different types of NPM1+ AMLs.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".