MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

P1040: FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH THROMBOSIS IN MYELOFIBROSIS

2023· article· en· W4386067267 on OpenAlexaffabout
Aniket Bankar, Gopila Gupta, Verna Cheung, Jaime O. Claudio, Andrea Arruda, Hubert Tsui, José‐Mario Capo‐Chichi, Hassan Sibai, Marta Davidson, Dawn Maze, Vikas Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueHemaSphere · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentrePrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMyelofibrosisPolycythemia veraInternal medicineHazard ratioThrombosisPopulationIncidence (geometry)Diabetes mellitusProportional hazards modelSurgeryConfidence intervalBone marrow

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Topic: 16. Myeloproliferative neoplasms - Clinical Background: There is limited data on understanding of risk factors associated with thrombosis in patients with myelofibrosis (MF). Aims: To identify patient, disease and treatment related risk factors associated with thrombosis in myelofibrosis Methods:Design: Retrospective, single-centre study. Study population and setting: Consecutive patients with chronic phase MF (overt primary, secondary and pre-fibrotic) seen at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada from 2004 to 2019 with follow up data updated through January 31, 2023 and identified from a prospective database (NCT02760238) Methodology: All variables were collected at the time of diagnosis/referral which in majority of cases was within 6 months of diagnosis. These included: age, sex, DIPSS risk category, blood counts (hemoglobin, WBC, platelets, blast percentage), driver mutations (JAK2, CALR, MPL), smoking, cardiovascular risk factors (obesity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hypercholesterolemia), history of prior thrombosis and palpable splenomegaly. Competing risk models were developed with death before occurrence of thrombosis as a competing event. Patients were censored at the time of last follow up date or transplant. An estimate of the effect of each variable on the incidence of thrombosis was obtained with Fine and Gray method as sub-distribution hazard ratios (SHR). Variables with p<0.10 in univariable analysis were entered into multivariable model. The final model was selected using stepwise backward selection using BICcr selection criteria. We then allocated points based on SHR to the factors significant (p<0.05) in multivariable model. The risk score was calculated for each patient in the dataset and then an internal validation was performed using 1000 times bootstrap resampling with this risk score as the predictor. Discrimination of the model was assessed using area under operating characteristics (AUC, also known as C-index) and Brier score. The calibration of the model was assessed graphically by comparing the predicted probability to the observed probability across 10 deciles of predicted risk. Results: Total 439 MF patients were included in the study, 229 (52%) were primary, 153 (35%), secondary, and 57 (13%) pre-fibrotic. The median age was 68.6 years (SD 12.7), 59% were male. The median follow-up in surviving patients was 6.9 years (IQR 5.1-10.1). There were 85 thrombotic events (58 venous, 27 arterial) during follow up. The univariate Fine Gray analysis showed that presence of JAK2 mutation, prior thrombosis, and female sex were associated with increased thrombosis risk and these variables also remained significant in the multivariable model (Figure1). Based on the SHR, risk scores were assigned as follows: 2 points for prior thrombosis (SHR 2.99, 95%CI 1.83-4.90) and 1 point each for JAK mutation (SHR 1.83, 95%CI 1.09-3.08) and female sex (SHR 1.61, 95%CI 1.05-2.47). Subsequent tallying of risk points allowed development of three-tiered risk model: Low risk (0 point), Intermediate risk (1-2 points) and High risk (3-4 points). Internal validation was performed using bootstrap with 1000 samples. The Wolber’s concordance index at 1-year was 0.65, suggesting adequate discrimination. The model showed good calibration graphically. Summary/Conclusion: SHR weight-based risk scoring can be used to stratify the risk of thrombosis in MF patients with reasonable discrimination. Further work is in progress to validate these findings in an additional independent dataset and updated data will be presented.Keywords: Myelofibrosis

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)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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)0.0050.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHemaSphereSame topicMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207