Langerhans cell histiocytosis is a neoplasm and consequently its recurrence is a relapse: In memory of Bob Arceci
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) remains a poorly understood disorder with heterogeneous clinical presentations characterized by focal or disseminated lesions that contain excessive CD1a+ langerin+ cells with dendritic cell features known as "LCH cells." Two of the major questions investigated over the past century have been (i) the origin of LCH cells and (ii) whether LCH is primarily an immune dysregulatory disorder or a neoplasm. Current opinion is that LCH cells are likely to arise from hematopoietic precursor cells, although the stage of derailment and site of transformation remain unclear and may vary in patients with different extent of disease. Over the years, evidence has provided the view that LCH is a neoplasm. The demonstration of clonality of LCH cells, insufficient evidence alone for neoplasia, is now bolstered by finding driver somatic mutations in BRAF in up to 55% of patients with LCH, and activation of the RAS-RAF-MEK-ERK (where MEK and ERK are mitogen-activated protein kinase and extracellular signal-regulated kinase, respectively) pathway in nearly 100% of patients with LCH. Herein, we review the evidence that recurrent genetic abnormalities characterized by activating oncogenic mutations should satisfy prerequisites for LCH to be called a neoplasm. As a consequence, recurrent episodes of LCH should be considered relapsed disease rather than disease reactivation. Mapping the complete genetic landscape of this intriguing disease will provide additional support for the conclusion that LCH is a neoplasm and is likely to provide more potential opportunities for molecularly targeted therapies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| 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".