ArticleCancer cell international2025
Predicting survival of persons with newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma.
Article in Cancer cell international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundPredicting survival in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients accurately remains challenging. Although mSMART3.0 is widely used it has not been rigorously tested for prediction accuracy.
methodsWe analysed clinical and laboratory variables in 1,008 NDMM patients, randomly split into a training set (n = 704) and a validation set (n = 304). Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses identified independent prognostic factors, forming a baseline survival model. For patients with available mSMART3.0 data, we integrated it with the baseline nomogram to enhance predictive accuracy. Time-dependent area under the receiver-operator characteristic curve (timeROC), calibration plots as well as comparisons with other survival prediction systems were used to estimated model performance.
resultsThe baseline models, incorporating eight factors, achieved 5-year survival AUCs of 0.77 (95% CI: 0.72–0.81) in the training set and 0.73 (95% CI: 0.66–0.80) in the validation set. In the training set, 5-year survival was 34% (95% CI: 28–41%) in the high-risk group versus 72% (95% CI: 67–78%) in the low-risk group (p < 0.001), with similar differences observed in the validation set. The model exhibited excellent discrimination and calibration in both sets. In the training cohort the merged nomogram increased the 5-year survival AUCs of mSMART3.0 from 0.64 (0.57, 0.71) to 0.75 (0.67, 0.83; p = 0.003), better than the other staging systems of MM.
conclusionsThe proposed nomograms increased the survival prediction accuracy in patients with NDMM.
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.