ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023
Myelofibrosis and Survival Prognostic Models: A Journey between Past and Future.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of 47 published cases of extramedullary hematopoiesis in myelofibrosis: clinical patterns, treatment responses, and prognostic implications.Annals of hematology · 2026Pooled it
- Indications for Autologous and Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation in Adults: State of the Art.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Development of an automated artificial intelligence-based tool for reticulin fibrosis assessment in bone marrow biopsies.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026Article
- Hepcidin as a Molecular Hub of Iron Homeostasis: From BMP-SMAD Signaling to Therapeutic Modulation.Biomolecules · 2026Review
- PD-1/PD-L1-CXCR3 Coexpression and CXCR3 on Intermediate Monocytes Predict Fibrosis, Leukemic Transformation, and Survival in Egyptian Philadelphia-Negative Myeloproliferative Neoplasms.Clinical Medicine Insights. Oncology · 2026Article
- Vitamin K Antagonists (VKAs) and Novel Oral Anticoagulants (NOACs) Safety Comparison Based on Data from EudraVigilance Database.Hematology reports · 2025Article
- Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in the new era: prognostic tools for mapping risk.Annals of hematology · 2025Review
- Old Therapy, New Questions: Rethinking Phlebotomy in a Pharmacologic Landscape.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Emerging Therapeutic Approaches for Anemia in Myelofibrosis.Current hematologic malignancy reports · 2025Review
- Article
- Outcomes for ruxolitinib only versus combination with interferon in treating patients with myelofibrosis.Blood neoplasia · 2025Article
- Lactate accumulation promotes immunosuppression and fibrotic transformation of bone marrow microenvironment in myelofibrosis.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Article
- Emergencies in Hematology: Why, When and How I Treat?Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis associated with JAK2 V617F mutation-related pre-primary myelofibrosis: a case report and literature review.BMC neurology · 2024Review
- Early Access for Medicines in ITALY: The Case of Ruxolitinib for Patients with Graft-Versus-Host Disease.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Review
- AIPSS-MF machine learning prognostic score validation in a cohort of myelofibrosis patients treated with ruxolitinib.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2023Article
- A Journey Through JAK Inhibitors for the Treatment of Myeloproliferative Diseases.Current hematologic malignancy reports · 2023Review
- Article
- Additional Genetic Alterations and Clonal Evolution of MPNs with Double Mutations on theHematology reports · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Among the myeloproliferative diseases, myelofibrosis is a widely heterogeneous entity characterized by a highly variable prognosis. In this context, several prognostic models have been proposed to categorize these patients appropriately. Identifying who deserves more invasive treatments, such as bone marrow transplantation, is a critical clinical need. Age, complete blood count (above all, hemoglobin value), constitutional symptoms, driver mutations, and blast cells have always represented the milestones of the leading models still used worldwide (IPSS, DIPSS, MYSEC-PM). Recently, the advent of new diagnostic techniques (among all, next-generation sequencing) and the extensive use of JAK inhibitor drugs have allowed the development and validation of new models (MIPSS-70 and version 2.0, GIPSS, RR6), which are continuously updated. Finally, the new frontier of artificial intelligence promises to build models capable of drawing an overall survival perspective for each patient. This review aims to collect and summarize the existing standard prognostic models in myelofibrosis and examine the setting where each of these finds its best application.
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.