ArticleFrontiers in immunology2024
Immune-based subgroups uncover diverse tumor immunogenicity and implications for prognosis and precision therapy in acute myeloid leukemia.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 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.
- Ficoll-based isolation biases the profiling of immune cells and leukemic blasts in AML samples.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Network-based analysis and experimental validation of identified natural compounds from Yinchen Wuling San for acute myeloid leukemia.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Systematic Analysis of an Immune-Related Gene Signature for Predicting Prognosis and Immune Characteristics in Primary Lower Grade Glioma.BioMed research international · 2025Article
- The interaction between common genetic mutations in AML and the immune landscape: mechanisms and implications for immune response.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although a considerable proportion of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients achieve remission through chemotherapy, relapse remains a recurring and significant event leading to treatment failure. This study aims to investigate the immune landscape in AML and its potential implications for prognosis and chemo-/immune-therapy. Methods: Integrated analyses based on multiple sequencing datasets of AML were performed. Various algorithms estimated immune infiltration in AML samples. A subgroup prediction model was developed, and comprehensive bioinformatics and machine learning algorithms were applied to compare immune-based subgroups in relation to clinical features, mutational landscapes, immune characterizations, drug sensitivities, and cellular hierarchies at the single-cell level. Results: Two immune-based AML subgroups, G1 and G2, were identified. G1 demonstrated higher immune infiltration, a more monocytic phenotype, increased proportions of monocytes/macrophages, and higher FLT3, DNMT3A, and NPM1 mutation frequencies. It was associated with a poorer prognosis, lower proportions of various immune cell types and a lower T cell infiltration score (TIS). AML T-cell-based immunotherapy target antigens, including CLEC12A, Folate receptor β, IL1RAP and TIM3, showed higher expression levels in G1, while CD117, CD244, CD96, WT and TERT exhibited higher expression levels in G2. G1 samples demonstrated higher sensitivity to elesclomol and panobinostat but increased resistance to venetoclax compared to G2 samples. Moreover, we observed a positive correlation between sample immune infiltration and sample resistance to elesclomol and panobinostat, whereas a negative correlation was found with venetoclax resistance. Conclusion: Our study enriches the current AML risk stratification and provides guidance for precision medicine in 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.