MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3191391516 · doi:10.1002/ajh.26310

Diagnostic work‐up for severe aplastic anemia in children: Consensus of the <scp>North American Pediatric Aplastic Anemia Consortium</scp>

2021· article· en· W3191391516 on OpenAlexaff
Kristin A. Shimano, Anupama Narla, Melissa J. Rose, Nicholas J. Gloude, S. W. Allen, Katie Bergstrom, Larisa Broglie, Beth A. Carella, Paul Castillo, Jill L. O. de Jong, Yigal Dror, Amy E. Geddis, James N. Huang, Bonnie Lau, Catherine McGuinn, Taizo A. Nakano, Kathleen Overholt, Jennifer Rothman, Anjali Sharathkumar, Evan Shereck, Adrianna Vlachos, Timothy S. Olson, Alison A. Bertuch, Marcin W. Włodarski, Akiko Shimamura, Jessica Boklan

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Hematology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAplastic anemiaHematologistBone marrow failureAnemiaPediatricsBone marrowMyelodysplastic syndromesIntensive care medicineInternal medicineHaematopoiesisDiseaseStem cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The North American Pediatric Aplastic Anemia Consortium (NAPAAC) is a group of pediatric hematologist-oncologists, hematopathologists, and bone marrow transplant physicians from 46 institutions in North America with interest and expertise in aplastic anemia, inherited bone marrow failure syndromes, and myelodysplastic syndromes. The NAPAAC Bone Marrow Failure Diagnosis and Care Guidelines Working Group was established with the charge of harmonizing the approach to the diagnostic workup of aplastic anemia in an effort to standardize best practices in the field. This document outlines the rationale for initial evaluations in pediatric patients presenting with signs and symptoms concerning for severe aplastic anemia.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations38
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of HematologySame topicHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationFrench-language works237,207