Diagnosis and Treatment of Pediatric Moderate Aplastic Anemia: A survey of the North American Pediatric Aplastic Anemia Consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pediatric moderate aplastic anemia (MAA) lacks defined diagnostic criteria and a clear standard-of-care due to the limited knowledge of its pathophysiology and natural history. The approach to MAA has been historically inconsistent as the proposed survey demonstrates. To understand current diagnostic and management practices for patients with MAA, a survey was conducted among members of the North American Pediatric Aplastic Anemia Consortium (NAPAAC), including 104 providers across 57 institutions. The survey demonstrates broad variability regarding the working definition, diagnostic work-up, and therapeutic management of children with MAA. The diagnostic work-up and treatment options for children with MAA are largely driven by management guidelines for pediatric severe aplastic anemia (SAA). Treatment triggers, type of therapy, and outcomes varied widely among respondents. Curated next generation sequencing panels and whole exome/whole genome sequencing were included by only 55% and 9% of respondents, respectively which suggests the need to more broadly consider inherited bone marrow failure syndromes in the differential diagnosis for these patients. Effective and risk-adapted treatment for MAA requires a better understanding of the biology, natural history, and treatment outcomes for this heterogeneous population.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".