ArticleTransfusion2018
Rapid prediction of stem cell mobilization using volume and conductivity data from automated hematology analyzers.
Article in Transfusion, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRapid analytics to predict circulating hematopoietic stem cells are valuable for optimal management of mobilization, particularly for the use of newer and costly mobilization agents such as plerixafor. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsWe used stepwise, linear multiple regression modeling applied to cell population data collected by routine hematology analyzers (Beckman Coulter DxH 800) on patients undergoing autologous stem cell collection (n = 131). Beta coefficients were used to derive a formula for a stem cell index (SCI). We then tested the correlation of SCI with stem cell counts and performance of the SCI as a predictor of poor mobilization with external validation in a separate cohort (n = 183).
resultsThe SCI correlated strongly with CD34 counts by flow cytometry (r = 0.8372 in the development cohort, r = 0.8332 in the external validation cohort) and compares favorably with other rapid stem cell enumerating technologies. In the external validation cohort, the SCI performed well as a predictor (receiver operating characteristic area under the curve, 0.9336) of poor mobilization (CD34 count < 10), with a sensitivity of 72% and a specificity of 93%. When prevalence of poor mobilization was 33%, this resulted in a positive predictive value of 83% and a negative predictive value of 87%. The SCI also showed promise in tracking responses to plerixafor administration.
conclusionThe findings demonstrate the utility of the cell population data collected by hematology analyzers to provide rapid data beyond standard complete blood counts, particularly for stem cell count prediction, requiring no additional reagents, specimen, or instrumentation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.