Association of clonal hematopoiesis mutations with clinical outcomes: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Clonal hematopoiesis (CH) mutations are common among individuals without known hematologic disease. CH mutations have been associated with numerous adverse clinical outcomes across many different studies. We systematically reviewed the available literature for clinical outcomes associated with CH mutations in patients without hematologic disease. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus for eligible studies. Three investigators independently extracted the data, and each study was verified by a second author. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale. We identified 32 studies with 56 cohorts that examine the association between CH mutations and clinical outcomes. We conducted meta‐analyses comparing outcomes among individuals with and without detectable CH mutations. We conducted meta‐analyses for cardiovascular diseases (nine studies; HR = 1.61, 95% CI = 1.26–2.07, p = .0002), hematologic malignancies (seven studies; HR = 5.59, 95% CI = 3.31–9.45, p < .0001), therapy‐related myeloid neoplasms (four studies; HR = 7.55, 95% CI = 4.3–13.57, p < .001), and death (nine studies; HR = 1.34, 95% CI = 1.2–1.5, p < .0001). The cardiovascular disease analysis was further stratified by variant allele fraction (VAF) and gene, which showed a statistically significant association only with a VAF of ≥ 10% (HR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.24–1.62, p < .0001), as well as statistically significant associations for each gene examined with the largest magnitude of effect found for CH mutations in JAK2 (HR = 3.5, 95% CI = 1.84–6.68, p < .0001). Analysis of the association of CH mutations with hematologic malignancy demonstrated a numeric stepwise increase in risk with increasing VAF thresholds. This analysis strongly supports the association of CH mutations with a clinically meaningful increased risk of adverse clinical outcomes among individuals without hematologic disease, particularly with increasing VAF thresholds.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".