ReviewCancers2022
A Focus on Intermediate-Risk Acute Myeloid Leukemia: Sub-Classification Updates and Therapeutic Challenges.
Review in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tunable universal OR-gated CAR T cells for AML.iScience · 2026Article
- Insights into the biological features and improved diagnostics of adult acute myeloid leukemia via fusion genes identified through targeted next-generation sequencing.Cancer pathogenesis and therapy · 2026Article
- Plasma lipid levels predict chemotherapy response and survival in acute myeloid leukemia.Blood · 2025Article
- Transcriptome-based molecular subgroup identification and prognosis stratification in pediatric AML.Annals of hematology · 2025Article
- Review
- Identification of Prognostic Genes in Acute Myeloid Leukemia Microenvironment: A Bioinformatic and Experimental Analysis.Molecular biotechnology · 2025Article
- Parallel single-cell metabolic analysis and extracellular vesicle profiling reveal vulnerabilities with prognostic significance in acute myeloid leukemia.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Autophagy and inflammasome activation are associated with poor response to FLT3 inhibitors in patients with FLT3-ITD acute myeloid leukemia.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Application of omics in the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of acute myeloid leukemia.Biomarker research · 2024Review
- Applicability of 2022 classifications of acute myeloid leukemia in the real-world setting.Blood advances · 2023Article
- Investigation of distinct gene expression profile patterns that can improve the classification of intermediate-risk prognosis in AML patients.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) represents a heterogeneous group of hematopoietic neoplasms deriving from the abnormal proliferation of myeloid progenitors in the bone marrow. Patients with AML may have highly variable outcomes, which are generally dictated by individual clinical and genomic characteristics. As such, the European LeukemiaNet 2017 and 2022 guidelines categorize newly diagnosed AML into favorable-, intermediate-, and adverse-risk groups, based on their molecular and cytogenetic profiles. Nevertheless, the intermediate-risk category remains poorly defined, as many patients fall into this group as a result of their exclusion from the other two. Moreover, further genomic data with potential prognostic and therapeutic influences continue to emerge, though they are yet to be integrated into the diagnostic and prognostic models of AML. This review highlights the latest therapeutic advances and challenges that warrant refining the prognostic classification of intermediate-risk 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.