ArticleCancers2025
Usefulness of Flow Cytometry Monocyte Partitioning in the Diagnosis of Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia in a Real-World Setting.
Article in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
backgroundBased on CD14/CD16 expression, monocytes can be divided into the following three functionally distinct subsets: classical (MO1, CD14++/CD16-), intermediate (MO2, CD14+/CD16+) and non-classical (MO3, CD14
methodsOur study included 56 peripheral blood (PB) and 69 bone marrow (BM) samples. The PB cohort included 20 patients with CMML, 21 with no myeloid neoplasms (non-MN) and 15 with other myeloid neoplasms (non-CMML-MN). The BM cohort included 25 CMML, 16 non-MN and 28 non-CMML-MN cases. Taking advantage of an existing 8-color myelomonocytic tube routinely used in our lab, we conducted a retrospective monocyte subset analysis using a new sequential gating strategy.
resultsThe assay was able to distinguish CMML from non-CMML cases with high sensitivity (90.0%) and specificity (88.9%) in blood samples using a cutoff value of MO1 > 94%. For BM samples, a reduced MO3 < 1.24% was more closely associated with CMML with a sensitivity of 96.0% and a specificity of 79.5%. A side-by-side comparison of our assay with the original "monocyte assay" showed strong agreement.
conclusionsOur study demonstrates the utility of a practical and robust approach for monocyte subset analysis in the diagnosis of CMML.
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.