ReviewCancers2024
Biomolecular Classification in Endometrial Cancer: Onset, Evolution, and Further Perspectives: A Critical Review.
Review in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrated Molecular Profiling of Endometrial Cancer: NGS Findings, MSI/MMR Status, Histopathological Features, and TCGA-Inspired Molecular Classification.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Development and Internal Validation of a Nomogram for Predicting Recurrence in Endometrial Cancer Based on Pathological and Histological Indicators.Cancer management and research · 2026Article
- Does FIGO 2023 meet clinical needs? An analysis of challenges and limitations.Przeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review · 2025Review
- Analysis of Differences in the Classification of Endometrial Cancer Patients in Poland.Cancers · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since the new guidelines for endometrial cancer risk classification have been published, many reviews have proposed a critical re-evaluation. In this review, we look back to how the molecular classification system was built and its evolution in time to highlight the major flaws, particularly the biases stemming from the inherent limitations of the cohorts involved in the discoveries. A significant drawback in some cohorts is the inclusion criteria, as well as the retrospective nature and the notably sparse numbers, especially in the
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.