1,721,295 research outputs found

    Diagnosis and classification of myelodysplastic syndromes

    Full text link
    : Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs) are neoplastic myeloid proliferations characterized by ineffective hematopoiesis resulting in peripheral blood cytopenias. MDS is distinguished from nonneoplastic clonal myeloid proliferations by the presence of morphologic dysplasia and from acute myeloid leukemia by a blast threshold of 20%. The diagnosis of MDS can be challenging because of the myriad other causes of cytopenias: accurate diagnosis requires the integration of clinical features with bone marrow and peripheral blood morphology, immunophenotyping, and genetic testing. MDS has historically been subdivided into several subtypes by classification schemes, the most recent of which are the International Consensus Classification and World Health Organization Classification (fifth edition), both published in 2022. The aim of MDS classification is to identify entities with shared genetic underpinnings and molecular pathogenesis, and the specific subtype can inform clinical decision-making alongside prognostic risk categorization. The current MDS classification schemes incorporate morphologic features (bone marrow and blood blast percentage, degree of dysplasia, ring sideroblasts, bone marrow fibrosis, and bone marrow hypocellularity) and also recognize 3 entities defined by genetics: isolated del(5q) cytogenetic abnormality, SF3B1 mutation, and TP53 mutation. It is anticipated that with advancing understanding of the genetic basis of MDS pathogenesis, future MDS classification will be based increasingly on genetic classes. Nevertheless, morphologic features in MDS reflect the phenotypic expression of the underlying abnormal genetic pathways and will undoubtedly retain importance to inform prognosis and guide treatment

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
    corecore