MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408460398 · doi:10.1002/ajh.27665

Topics of Interest in Women With Myeloproliferative Neoplasms

2025· review· en· W4408460398 on OpenAlexaff
Natasha Szuber, Paola Guglielmelli, Naseema Gangat

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Hematology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEssential thrombocythemiaPolycythemia veraMedicineMyelofibrosisInternal medicineMyeloproliferative neoplasmDiseaseOncologyGynecologyBone marrow

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OVERVIEW: Sex and gender have emerged as central modifiers of disease biology, phenotype, and clinical outcomes in myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs). This review will uniquely highlight issues affecting women with MPN and articulate their relevant determinants. EPIDEMIOLOGY AND DIAGNOSIS: A higher overall prevalence of MPN has been established in women. The incidence of essential thrombocythemia (ET) predominates, while, conversely, polycythemia vera (PV) and myelofibrosis (MF) are seen in lower frequencies as compared to men. Diagnostic criteria are dictated by sex-driven physiological variances in hemoglobin and hematocrit levels in PV, mandating separate diagnostic thresholds, respectively: > 16.0 g/dL and > 48% in women vs. > 16.5 and > 49% in men. GENETIC FRAMEWORK AND PHENOTYPE: Women with MPN harbor fewer acquired somatic mutations and a lower frequency of high-risk mutations than their male counterparts; lower JAK2V617F driver variant allele frequency and attenuated allele burden kinetics have also been reported. Women with MPN are younger at diagnosis than men and, contingent on subtype, display more indolent disease features. Importantly, validated symptom burden assessments consistently disclose higher scores in women vs. men. THROMBOSIS AND OUTCOMES: Women with MPN have a unique thrombotic diathesis with respect to men, more frequently involving the splanchnic venous system in those ultimately diagnosed with PV. Outcomes data depict female sex as a variable associated with more favorable clinical trajectories, including lower rates of MF/leukemic transformation and secondary cancers, as well as improved overall survival rates vis-à-vis men. LIFE-CYCLE WINDOWS, PREGNANCY, AND POSTPARTUM: Potential challenges at each significant life stage will be addressed: puberty, preconception and fertility, and perimenopause; these include issues surrounding oral contraceptives and hormone use. Prospective studies suggest overall favorable maternal and fetal outcomes with pregnancy in women with MPN. Full details on risks and reported outcomes will be discussed, as well as a risk-adapted approach to management informed by obstetric and thrombosis history. Recommendations include aspirin 81 mg daily in all patients and cytoreduction with interferon-α in those with antecedent thrombosis, as well as in low-risk cases with higher-risk features (e.g., poorly controlled hematocrit and recurrent fetal loss). Antepartum anticoagulation with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is recommended in cases with previous venous thromboembolism. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS: This review highlights female sex and gender as critical drivers of MPN incidence, presentation, and natural history. It further outlines the impact and management of MPN as related to unique female reproductive phases. A sex-informed lens will be required in order to recalibrate current prognostic tools, a requisite to refining patient counselling and clinical decision-making in line with precision medicine. Moreover, while several mechanisms underpinning sex-defined discrepancies have been defined, these mandate further prospective study. Finally, sex and gender-based differences must be weighted in clinical trials with systematized procedures to correct participation imbalances in favor of sex and gender equity.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.003

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of HematologySame topicMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207