Clinicopathologic Features of Histiocytic Lesions following ALL, with a Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe the clinicopathologic features of 15 patients who had histiocytic lesions that followed acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Twenty-one separate histiocytic lesions were evaluated that covered a wide spectrum, some conforming to the usual categories of juvenile xanthogranulomas (5), Langerhans' cell histiocytosis (1), Langerhans' cell sarcoma (4), Rosai-Dorfman disease (1), and histiocytic sarcoma (4). Most were atypical for the category by histology, phenotype, or abnormally high turnover rate. Seven low-grade lesions defied easy categorization and were characterized only as "atypical histiocytic lesion" following ALL. For those evaluated, the molecular signature of the prior leukemia was present in the histiocytic lesion. In 3 of 15 patients, the leukemia and histiocytic lesion shared immunoglobulin H or monoclonal TCR gene rearrangements and, in 4 of 15 patients, clonal identity was documented by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Four patients died of progressive disease, 3 of whom had histiocytic sarcoma and 1 who had an atypical lesion. One patient died of recurrent ALL. The other 10 patients are alive, 7 after recurrences and treatment with surgery and/or chemotherapy. The post-ALL lesions are more aggressive than their native counterparts, but despite the demonstration of the presence of the leukemia signature in 7 of 15 patients, the prognosis is generally favorable, except for patients with histiocytic sarcoma. It remains unclear whether the histiocytic lesions arise as a line from the original ALL or whether transdifferentiation is involved.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".