MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W41001845 · doi:10.1093/pch/13.6.499

Performing bone marrow aspiration and biopsy in children: Recommended guidelines

2008· article· en· W41001845 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHematological disorders and diagnostics
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrephineMedicineBone marrowBiopsyBone marrow examinationPathologyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bone marrow aspiration (BMA) and bone marrow trephine biopsy are important procedures for the diagnosis of hematological malignancies and nonmalignant diseases in children. During BMA, bone marrow particles are obtained for analysis including microscopic morphologic evaluations and differential counts. During a trephine biopsy, a core of bone marrow is obtained and processed for the evaluation of marrow cellularity and to rule out marrow involvement by solid tumours, lymphomas or other processes. These invasive procedures should only be performed by a trained individual following a standard operating technique. There are no clear published guidelines in the paediatric literature. Hence, the purpose of the present article is to provide guidelines for the performance of BMAs and bone marrow trephine biopsies in children that will be useful for both general paediatricians and paediatric hematologists and oncologists.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.270 · 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