ArticleScientific reports2022
Prognostic prediction of novel risk scores (AML-DRG and AML-HCT-CR) in acute myeloid leukemia patients with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- A molecular-based risk score for predicting leukemia-free survival in adult AML patients undergoing Allo-HSCT.iScience · 2025Article
- Transforming growth factor-β1 and vascular endothelial growth factor levels in senile acute myeloid leukemia and correlation with prognosis.World journal of clinical cases · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We aimed to validate and prove the novel risk score models of acute myeloid leukemia (AML)-specific disease risk group (AML-DRG) and AML-Hematopoietic Cell Transplant-composite risk (AML-HCT-CR) in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHCT). Among the 172 AML patients analysed, 48.3% (n = 83) were females. Median age was 31.5 years (range 14 to 62 years), two patients was more than 60 years old (1.2%). Median follow-up was 44 months (range 1 to 94 months). According to the AML-DRG model, 109, 49 and 14 patients were in low-, intermediate- and high-risk group, respectively. According to the AML-HCT-CR model, 108, 30, 20 and 14 patients were in low-, intermediate-, high- and very high-risk group, respectively. Our results showed that the AML-DRG and AML-HCT-CR models significantly predicted cumulative incidence of relapse (p < 0.001; p < 0.001). But AML-DRG model was not associated with NRM (p = 0.072). Univariate analysis showed that the AML-DRG model could better stratify AML patients into different risk groups compared to the AML-HCT-CR model. Multivariate analysis confirmed that prognostic impact of AML-DRG and AML-HCT-CR models on post-transplant OS was independent to age, sex, conditioning type, transplant modality, and stem cell source (p < 0.001; p < 0.001). AML-DRG and AML-HCT-CR models can be used to effectively predict post-transplant survival in patients with AML receiving AHCT. Compared to AML-HCT-CR score, the AML-DRG score allows better stratification and improved survival prediction of AML patients post-transplant.
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.