ArticleAnnals of hematology2026
The optimal conditioning intensity of stem cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia in complete remission.
Article in Annals of hematology, 2026. 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
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to identify patient groups in which myeloablative conditioning (MAC) or reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens induced superior progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in complete remission (CR) using a machine-learning approach. Our study included 3273 patients aged 40–69 with AML in CR. The patients were divided into training (N = 2020) and validation cohorts (N = 1253). We employed a machine learning-based group identification model in the training cohort. Subsequently, in the validation cohort, we estimated the impact of the optimal conditioning group compared with the non-optimal conditioning group on PFS using an inverse probability weight analysis. The developed model was consistent with the eight factors and combinations, and the high score suggested that RIC was more appropriate than MAC. In the validation cohort, 127 patients with high scores and who received RIC and 769 patients with low scores and who received MAC were categorized into the optimal conditioning group (896, 71.5%). The weighted hazard ratio for PFS was 0.73 (95% confidence interval: 0.57–0.94) in the optimal conditioning group compared with the non-optimal conditioning group (P = 0.016). In conclusion, we developed an easy-to-use model that helps the physician choose a patient-specific conditioning regimen for patients with AML in CR.
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.