MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403079162 · doi:10.1101/2024.09.30.24314665

Risk of Incident Cytopenia in Clonal Hematopoiesis

2024· preprint· en· W4403079162 on OpenAlexaff
James Brogan, Ashwin Kishtagari, Robert W. Corty, Yash Pershad, Caitlyn Vlasschaert, Brian Sharber, J. Brett Heimlich, Leo Y. Luo, Yaomin Xu, Alexander G. Bick

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHematological disorders and diagnostics
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNational Institutes of HealthEdward P. Evans FoundationAlexander and Margaret Stewart Trust
KeywordsCytopeniaHaematopoiesisMedicineBiologyGeneticsImmunologyBone marrowStem cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) is an asymptomatic condition associated with elevated risk for myeloid neoplasms (MN). Patients with CHIP and cytopenia are at greater risk of MN. Quantifying the incidence of cytopenia and identifying risk factors among CHIP patients is critical for improving clinical management. We analyzed sequencing data from 805,249 participants in the NIH All of Us Research Program (AoU), Vanderbilt’s BioVU repository, and UK Biobank (UKB). Genetic mutations, laboratory values, and MN diagnoses were included in survival analyses to determine predictors of cytopenia in individuals with CHIP and matched controls. The cohort contained 9,374 CHIP cases and 24,749 controls. Cytopenia occurred in 13.5% of cases and 11.6% of controls (HR = 1.17, 95% confidence interval: 1.10 – 1.25, P=2.5 × 10 −6 ). Cytopenia risk factors included smoking, male sex, variant allele frequency ≥ 0.20, age ≥ 65, mean corpuscular volume ≥ 100 femtoliters, red cell distribution width ≥ 15%, mutations in high-risk CHIP genes, and ≥ 2 CHIP mutations. In BioVU, 45% of participants with ≥ 4 risk factors progressed to cytopenia within two years. Individuals with CHIP and cytopenia progressed to MN at a rate of ~2% per year, compared to <0.1% per year for those without cytopenia. Longitudinal analysis across three cohorts demonstrated an increased risk of cytopenia in CHIP patients and identified those at highest risk. These findings suggest that cytopenia is a critical step in progression from CHIP to MN, underscoring its utility as an endpoint in cancer prevention trials for CHIP patients.

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)0.002
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 score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.729

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicHematological disorders and diagnosticsFrench-language works237,207