ReviewCancers2024
Comparative Analysis of AML Classification Systems: Evaluating the WHO, ICC, and ELN Frameworks and Their Distinctions.
Review in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preliminary evidence for the integration of CNAs, CN-LOH and mutational profiles into the prognostic stratification of elderly patients withOncology letters · 2026Article
- Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis and Clinical Management.Hematology reports · 2025Review
- Apoptosis-targeting BH3 mimetics: transforming treatment for patients with acute myeloid leukaemia.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2025Review
- Recent advances in drug delivery and treatment strategies for acute myeloid leukemia.International journal of pharmaceutics · 2025Review
- Integrated bioinformatics and functional studies identify CDK9 as a potential prognostic biomarker and therapeutic target in AML.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- The Prognostic Value of Integrating Copy Number Alteration Profiles inThe application of clinical genetics · 2025Article
- Targeting lipid metabolic vulnerabilities with small-molecule inhibitors in acute myeloid leukemia: Emerging insights and therapeutic opportunities.Tzu chi medical journalReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Comprehensive analyses of the molecular heterogeneity of acute myelogenous leukemia, AML, particularly when malignant cells retain normal karyotype, has significantly evolved. In 2022, significant revisions were introduced in the World Health Organization (WHO) classification and the European LeukemiaNet (ELN) 2022 guidelines of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). These revisions coincided with the inception of the first version of the International Consensus Classification (ICC) for AML. These modifications aim to improve diagnosis and treatment outcomes via a comprehensive incorporation of sophisticated genetic and clinical parameters as well as facilitate accruals to innovative clinical trials. Key updates include modifications to the blast count criteria for AML diagnosis, with WHO 2022 eliminating the ≥20% blast requirement in the presence of AML-defining abnormalities and ICC 2022 setting a 10% cutoff for recurrent genetic abnormalities. Additionally, new categories, such as AML with mutated TP53 and MDS/AML, were introduced. ELN 2022 guidelines retained risk stratification approach and emphasized the critical role of measurable residual disease (MRD) that increased the use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) and flow cytometry testing. These revisions underscore the importance of precise classification for targeted treatment strategies and improved patient outcomes. How much difference versus concordance these classifications present and the impact of those on clinical practice is a continuing discussion.
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.