ArticleBlood advances2021
Simple and robust methylation test for risk stratification of patients with juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia.
Article in Blood advances, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Clinical and molecular characterization of patients with juvenile myelomonocytic leukaemia.British journal of haematology · 2025Article
- Epigenetic risk stratification in juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia by targeted methylation analysis of the BMP4 locus.Clinical epigenetics · 2025Article
- Co-operative epigenetic remodelling by Setd2 deficiency and Kras mutation drives juvenile myelomonocytic leukaemia development and MEK inhibitor sensitivity.British journal of haematology · 2025Article
- Clinical and molecular features ofHaematologica · 2023Article
- Layered immunity and layered leukemogenicity: Developmentally restricted mechanisms of pediatric leukemia initiation.Immunological reviews · 2023Review
- Review
- Current and Emerging Technologies for the Analysis of the Genome-Wide and Locus-Specific DNA Methylation Patterns.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia (JMML) is a rare myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm that develops during infancy and early childhood. The array-based international consensus definition of DNA methylation has recently classified patients with JMML into the following 3 groups: high (HM), intermediate (IM), and low methylation (LM). To develop a simple and robust methylation clinical test, 137 patients with JMML were analyzed using the Digital Restriction Enzyme Analysis of Methylation (DREAM), which is a next-generation sequencing-based methylation analysis. Unsupervised consensus clustering of the discovery cohort (n = 99) using DREAM data identified HM (HM_DREAM; n = 35) and LM subgroups (LM_DREAM; n = 64). Of the 98 cases that could be compared with the international consensus classification, 90 HM (n = 30) and LM (n = 60) cases had 100% concordance with DREAM clustering results. Of the remaining 8 cases comprising the IM group, 4 were classified as belonging to the HM_DREAM group and 4 to the LM_DREAM group. A machine-learning classifier was successfully constructed using a support vector machine (SVM), which divided the validation cohort (n = 38) into HM (HM_SVM, n = 18) and LM (LM_SVM; n = 20) groups. Patients with the HM_SVM profile had a significantly poorer 5-year overall survival rate than those with the LM_SVM profile. In conclusion, we developed a robust methylation test using DREAM for patients with JMML. This simple and straightforward test can be easily incorporated into diagnosis to generate a methylation classification for patients so they can receive risk-adapted treatment in the context of future clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.