ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- WT1 gene: a potential therapeutic target for multiple cancer treatment strategies.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2025Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
(1) Background: The aim of our study was the complex assessment of WT1 variants and their expression in relation to chromosomal changes and molecular prognostic markers in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). It is the first multidimensional study in Polish AML patients; (2) Methods: Bone marrow aspirates of 90 AML patients were used for cell cultures (banding techniques and fluorescence in situ hybridization), and to isolate DNA (WT1 genotyping, array comparative genomic hybridization), and RNA (WT1 expression). Peripheral blood samples from 100 healthy blood donors were used to analyze WT1 rs16754; (3) Results: Allele frequency and distribution of WT1 variant rs16754 (A;G) did not differ significantly among AML patients and controls. Higher expression of WT1 gene was observed in AA genotype (of rs16754) in comparison with GA or GG genotypes—10,556.7 vs. 25,836.5 copies (p = 0.01), respectively. WT1 mutations were more frequent in AML patients under 65 years of age (p < 0.0001) and affected relapse-free survival (RFS). The presence of NPM1 or CEBPA mutations decreased the risk of WT1 mutation presence, odds ratio (OR) = 0.11, 95% CI 0.02−0.46, p = 0.002 or OR = 0.05, 95% CI 0.006−0.46, p = 0.002, respectively. We observed significantly higher WT1 expression in AML CD34+ vs. CD34−, −20,985 vs. 8304 (p = 0.039), respectively. The difference in WT1 expression between patients with normal and abnormal karyotype was statistically insignificant; (4) Conclusions: WT1 gene expression and its rs16754 variant at diagnosis did not affect AML outcome. WT1 mutation may affect RFS in AML.
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.