MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409851730 · doi:10.1007/s12185-025-03989-z

Disease response criteria in Langerhans cell histiocytosis: a global view

2025· review· en· W4409851730 on OpenAlexaff
Ilia N. Buhtoiarov, Milen Minkov, Reza Vali, Oussama Abla

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Hematology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHistiocytic Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLangerhans cell histiocytosisMedicineHistiocytosisHistiocyteOncologyDiseaseInternal medicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) is an inflammatory myeloid neoplasm with heterogeneous presentations. The discovery of BRAFV600E and other MAPK pathway mutations drastically transformed the treatment landscape, especially for high-risk LCH and CNS-LCH. While treatment strategies for children and adults are somewhat similar, response assessment methodologies remain highly dichotomized.Currently, separate treatment response criteria exist for children and adults, especially in therapeutic trials. Considering the rapid evolution of targeted MAPK-inhibitor therapies, along with ultrasensitive detection of minimal residual disease biomarkers (e.g., circulating BRAFV600E-encoding DNA) and sophisticated imaging tools (18F-FDG-PET and whole-body MRI), harmonization of response criteria in LCH is clearly warranted. The Histiocyte Society Global LCH Treatment Response Harmonization Task Force, a collaborative network of pediatric and adult LCH experts, is set to propose updated pediatric LCH treatment response criteria, which will also serve as the foundation for a universal response assessment tool for pediatric and adult LCH. In this review, we focus on the past, present, and likely future of response assessment in LCH patients, and discuss needs that remain unmet in the targeted therapy era.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.816

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.383 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of HematologySame topicHistiocytic Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207