ArticlePeerJ2025
Retrospective study on the clinical outcomes and characteristics of acute myeloid leukemia: different outcomes in the same risk group.
Article in PeerJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global bibliometric analysis of TP53-mutated acute myeloid leukemia: research hotspots and evolution.Translational cancer research · 2026Article
- Post-marketing safety evaluation of anthracycline for acute myeloid leukemia treatment: a real-world pharmacovigilance analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remains a prognostically heterogeneous malignancy despite advances in molecular risk stratification. While the 2022 European Leukemia Network (ELN) guidelines refine risk classification, their accuracy in predicting survival outcomes across genetic requires validation. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 154 newly diagnosed AML patients at Daping Hospital, integrating next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based genetic profiling, 2022 ELN risk classification, and clinical outcomes. Results: The most frequent mutations were Conclusions: The ELN risk classification demonstrate limitations in prognostication, particularly for patients with Trial registration: The study was registered on the Chinese clinical trial registry (ChiCTR) platform (No. ChiCTR2500096484).
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.