CNL and aCML should be considered as a single entity based on molecular profiles and outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic neutrophilic leukemia (CNL) and atypical chronic myeloid leukemia (aCML) are rare myeloid disorders that are challenging with regard to diagnosis and clinical management. To study the similarities and differences between these disorders, we undertook a multicenter international study of one of the largest case series (CNL, n = 24; aCML, n = 37 cases, respectively), focusing on the clinical and mutational profiles (n = 53 with molecular data) of these diseases. We found no differences in clinical presentations or outcomes of both entities. As previously described, both CNL and aCML share a complex mutational profile with mutations in genes involved in epigenetic regulation, splicing, and signaling pathways. Apart from CSF3R, only EZH2 and TET2 were differentially mutated between them. The molecular profiles support the notion of CNL and aCML being a continuum of the same disease that may fit best within the myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasms. We identified 4 high-risk mutated genes, specifically CEBPA (β = 2.26, hazard ratio [HR] = 9.54, P = .003), EZH2 (β = 1.12, HR = 3.062, P = .009), NRAS (β = 1.29, HR = 3.63, P = .048), and U2AF1 (β = 1.75, HR = 5.74, P = .013) using multivariate analysis. Our findings underscore the relevance of molecular-risk classification in CNL/aCML as well as the importance of CSF3R mutations in these diseases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".