Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42314037›Full record

ReviewBlood advances2026

A practical approach to risk stratification of incidental T-cell clonality.

Aaron J Wilk, Michael Khodadoust, Jean Oak

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Blood advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Aaron J WilkDepartment of Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA.ORCID 0000-0003-1430-5852
Michael KhodadoustDivision of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA.ORCID 0000-0001-9061-7351
Jean OakDepartment of Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA.ORCID 0000-0001-5220-4628

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

abstractBecause T-cell neoplasms often present with nonspecific findings, T-cell clonality assessment is performed across many clinical scenarios, including the workup of cytopenias, lymphocytosis, eosinophilia, and suspected lymphoma. Sensitive assays, including flow cytometric staining of the T-cell receptor (TCR) constant region and molecular-based TCR clonality testing, have enhanced our ability to detect T-cell neoplasms, but these techniques frequently identify T-cell clones in patients without suspicion of T-cell malignancy. These incidentally detected clones, sometimes called T-cell clones of uncertain significance, do not clearly have universal potential for progression to overt T-cell neoplasia. However, their detection can prompt unnecessary diagnostic procedures, generate unwarranted patient anxiety, and even lead to inappropriate therapeutic interventions. Here, we propose a practical framework for risk stratification of unexpected T-cell clones in peripheral blood that minimizes the risk of unnecessary intervention while maintaining vigilance for true T-cell malignancy.

Indexed as

T-LymphocytesClone CellsHumansLymphoma, T-CellReceptors, Antigen, T-CellRisk AssessmentReceptors, Antigen, T-Cell

Identifiers

PMID42314037
PMCPMC13583949

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.