Langerhans cell histiocytosis: NACHO update on progress, chaos, and opportunity on the path to rational cures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) is a myeloid neoplastic disorder characterized by lesions with CD1a-positive/Langerin (CD207)-positive histiocytes and inflammatory infiltrate that can cause local tissue damage and systemic inflammation. Clinical presentations range from single lesions with minimal impact to life-threatening disseminated disease. Therapy for systemic LCH has been established through serial trials empirically testing different chemotherapy agents and durations of therapy. However, fewer than 50% of patients who have disseminated disease are cured with the current standard-of-care vinblastine/prednisone/(mercaptopurine), and treatment failure is associated with long-term morbidity, including the risk of LCH-associated neurodegeneration. Historically, the nature of LCH-whether a reactive condition versus a neoplastic/malignant condition-was uncertain. Over the past 15 years, seminal discoveries have broadly defined LCH pathogenesis; specifically, activating mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway mutations (most frequently, BRAFV600E) in myeloid precursors drive lesion formation. LCH therefore is a clonal neoplastic disorder, although secondary inflammatory features contribute to the disease. These paradigm-changing insights offer a promise of rational cures for patients based on individual mutations, clonal reservoirs, and extent of disease. However, the pace of clinical trial development behind lags the kinetics of translational discovery. In this review, the authors discuss the current understanding of LCH biology, clinical characteristics, therapeutic strategies, and opportunities to improve outcomes for every patient through coordinated agent prioritization and clinical trial efforts.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".