MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396774129 · doi:10.1080/17474086.2024.2353772

Advances in our understanding of genetic markers and targeted therapies for pediatric LCH

2024· article· en· W4396774129 on OpenAlexaff
Aban Bahabri, Oussama Abla

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Hematology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHistiocytic Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLangerhans cell histiocytosisMedicineHistiocytosisMyeloidTargeted therapyPathologyImmunologyDiseaseInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) is a rare myeloid neoplasm, encompassing a diverse clinical spectrum ranging from localized bone or skin lesions to a multisystemic life-threatening condition. Over the past decade, there has been an expansion in understanding the molecular biology of LCH, which translated into innovative targeted therapeutic approaches. AREAS COVERED: In this article, we will review the molecular alterations observed in pediatric LCH and the relationship between these molecular changes and the clinical phenotype, as well as targeted therapies in LCH. EXPERT OPINION: Mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway mutation is a hallmark of LCH and is identified in 80% of the cases. Notably, BRAFV600E mutation is seen in ~50-60% of the cases, ~30% has other MAPK pathway mutations, while 15-20% have no detected mutations. While the first line therapeutic approach is vinblastine and prednisone, targeted therapies - specifically BRAF/MEK inhibitors - emerged as a promising second-line salvage strategy, particularly when a mutation is identified. Most patients respond to BRAF/MEK inhibitors but at least 75% reactivate after stopping, however, most patients respond again when restarting inhibitors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.507
Threshold uncertainty score0.234

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of HematologySame topicHistiocytic Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207