ReviewEJHaem2025
What Is Acute Myeloid Leukemia?
Review in EJHaem, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hybrid APSO-Bayesian optimized triple-kernel SVR models for QSAR and rational design of 1H-pyrrolo[2,3-c]pyridine-based LSD1 Inhibitors.Molecular diversity · 2026Article
- Defining the role of natural killer cells in acute myeloid leukemia through the lens of single-cell omics.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Congenital Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia with Hyperleucocytosis in a Full-Term Neonate: A Case Report.Case reports in oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The recently published fifth edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) Classification and the International Consensus Classification (ICC) of myeloid neoplasms diverge in their definitions of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Fundamentally, this current situation is problematic for two main reasons. First, the disagreement between the WHO and ICC reflects a conceptual conflict regarding the necessary and sufficient conditions for diagnosing AML. This leads to some confusion in areas such as nomenclature, therapeutic eligibility, clinical trial selection, and guidelines development. Second, in clinical practice, the two systems may assign different diagnoses to the same patient with a single disease entity. Such inconsistencies are unacceptable and highlight the urgent need for harmonization between the two classification systems. Topic: In response, we put forward a proposal based on an unorthodox approach that combines philosophical reflections on essential and accidental properties with the latest clinical evidence concerning "AML subtypes with defining genetic abnormalities," with the aim of initiating the unification of the WHO and ICC classification systems. Implications: In this review, we propose a preliminary recommendation for a unified WHO-ICC classification of five AML subtypes: AML with Trial Registration: The authors have confirmed clinical trial registration is not needed for this submission.
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.