ArticleNature communications2025
Epigenomic diagnosis and prognosis of Acute Myeloid Leukemia.
Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Putting the I in AML: Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Acute Myeloid Leukemia.Cells · 2026Review
- DNA Methylation as a Programmable Information Layer: From Molecular Marks to Disease State Engineering.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- DNA Methylation of Pharmacologic and Leukemia-Related Genes Predicts Clinical Outcomes in Pediatric Acute Myeloid Leukemia.Cancers · 2026Article
- Long-read sequencing technologies and bioinformatics: a new perspective for decoding DNA methylation modifications.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Review
- Molecular Characterization of T-Lineage Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia by an Optimal-Transport Based Multi-Omics Integration Framework.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- DNMT3A in cancer: from epigenetic writer to oncogenic driver.Clinical epigenetics · 2026Review
- International testing and refinement of AI algorithms predicting acute leukemia subtypes from routine laboratory data.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Preliminary Effects of Benralizumab in an AML Cell Model with Promyelocytic Features Expressing IL-5R: An Exploratory Proof-of-Concept Study.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Article
- Integrative Bioinformatics Reveals Novel Molecular Mechanisms and Therapeutic Targets in Acute Myeloid Leukaemia.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2026Article
- Monitoring of (Leukemia-Specific) Immune Cells in Stages, Treatment Groups and in the Course of Disease and Therapy Contributes to Qualify Antileukemic Potential and Survival in Patients with AML.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
29 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite the critical role of DNA methylation, clinical implementations harnessing its promise have not been described in acute myeloid leukemia. Utilizing DNA methylation from 3314 leukemia patient samples across 11 harmonized cohorts, we describe the Acute Leukemia Methylome Atlas, which includes robust models capable of accurately predicting AML subtypes. A genome-wide prognostic model as well as a targeted panel of 38 CpGs significantly predict five-year survival in our pediatric and adult test cohorts. To accelerate rapid clinical utility, we develop a specimen-to-result protocol that uses long-read nanopore sequencing and machine learning to characterize patients' whole genomes and epigenomes. Clinical validation on patient samples confirms high concordance between epigenomic signatures and genomic lesions, though uniquely rare karyotypes remained challenging due to limited available training data. These results unveil the potential for increased affordability, speed, and accuracy for patients in need of complex molecular diagnosis and prognosis.
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.