Clonal Hematopoiesis and Solid Cancers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clonal hematopoiesis refers to the expansion of hematopoietic stem cells harboring somatic mutations, a phenomenon increasingly recognized in aging populations. This review highlights the emerging relationship between clonal hematopoiesis and solid cancers, focusing on the prevalence and impact of clonal hematopoiesis-associated mutations such as DNMT3A, TET2, ASXL1, and TP53 in tumorigenesis. Key risk factors for the co-occurrence of clonal hematopoiesis and solid cancers, including germline genetic factors, aging, and environmental factors, are also discussed. We explore how clonal hematopoiesis mutations shape the tumor microenvironments in solid cancers by modulating immunoregulation, inflammation, and angiogenesis, thereby contributing to tumor progression. These findings underscore the dual role of clonal hematopoiesis as both a marker of cancer risk and a potential driver of solid cancer progression. The clinical implications of clonal hematopoiesis are also considered, including the prognostic value, impact on treatment response, and potential as a therapeutic target. Future directions are outlined to advance our understanding of clonal hematopoiesis and to exploit its clinical potential for cancer management.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".