MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411015159 · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103283

Incident cytopenia and risk of subsequent myeloid neoplasm in age-related clonal hematopoiesis: a multi-biobank case-control study

2025· article· en· W4411015159 on OpenAlexaff
James Brogan, Ashwin Kishtagari, Robert W. Corty, Yash Pershad, Caitlyn Vlasschaert, Brian Sharber, J. Brett Heimlich, Leo Y. Luo, P. Brent Ferrell, Michael R. Savona, Yaomin Xu, Alexander G. Bick

Bibliographic record

VenueEClinicalMedicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesFoundation for the National Institutes of HealthAmerican Federation for Aging ResearchAmerican Society of HematologyEdward P. Evans FoundationAlexander and Margaret Stewart TrustNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthPew Charitable TrustsBurroughs Wellcome FundASH FoundationNational Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
KeywordsMedicineCytopeniaBiobankOncologyInternal medicineBioinformaticsBone marrow

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Cross sectional studies have demonstrated patients with clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) are at increased risk of developing multiple adverse outcomes, including cytopenia and myeloid neoplasm (MN). One prior study suggests cytopenia or cytosis is a required intermediate step in disease progression from CHIP to MN. Methods We analyzed genomic sequencing data from the NIH All of Us Research Program, Vanderbilt's BioVU repository, and UK Biobank participants (N = 805,249). The study period ranged from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2023. Genetic mutations, demographic data, laboratory values, and MN outcomes were used to create a case-control study to estimate the risk of incident cytopenia and MN among cases with CHIP and matched controls without CHIP. Findings After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, the study cohort contained 9374 cases with CHIP and 24,749 matched controls without CHIP. Among the 34,123 participants, 190 (0.56%) developed incident cases of MN and 4151 (12.1%) developed an incident cytopenia. Individuals with CHIP at enrollment who subsequently developed a cytopenia progressed to MN at a rate of 0.5% per year, compared to 0.05% per year for those with CHIP and normal cell counts. Longitudinal analysis across three cohorts demonstrated an increased risk of cytopenia in CHIP patients and identified those at the highest risk of progression. Cytopenia risk factors included smoking (HR = 1.17, 95% CI: [1.05–1.32], P=5.87 × 10 −3 ), male sex (HR = 1.45, 95% CI: [1.30–1.62], P=2.17 × 10 −11 ), variant allele frequency ≥0.20 (HR = 1.36, 95% CI: [1.21–1.54], P=7.56 × 10 −7 ), age ≥65 (HR = 1.41, 95% CI: [1.25–1.57], P=3.98 × 10 −9 ), mean corpuscular volume ≥100 fL (HR = 2.12, 95% CI: [1.68–2.68], P=2.58 × 10 −10 ), red cell distribution width ≥15% (HR = 2.59, 95% CI: [2.26–2.98], P=1.14 × 10 −40 ), mutations in high-risk CHIP genes (HR = 1.48, 95% CI: [1.26–1.75], P=2.39 × 10 −6 ), and ≥2 CHIP mutations (HR = 1.95, 95% CI: [1.61–2.36], P=9.73 × 10 −12 ). Interpretation Longitudinal analysis across three large cohorts found that it is rare for patients with CHIP to develop MN without first developing cytopenia. The risk for MN among patients with CHIP resides almost entirely among those with cytopenia. 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. Funding National Institutes of Health, Burroughs Wellcome Fund, Edward P. Evans Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, Alexander and Margaret Stewart Trust, Beverly and George Rawlings Directorship.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.329 · 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.

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEClinicalMedicineSame topicAcute Myeloid Leukemia ResearchFrench-language works237,207