ArticleBMC cancer2026
Validation and prognostic utility of the mSMART 4.0 risk stratification system in Chinese patients with multiple myeloma.
Article in BMC cancer, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe 2024 Mayo Clinic mSMART 4.0 risk stratification system features significant revisions, yet its utility in Chinese multiple myeloma (MM) patients remains unvalidated. This study evaluates its prognostic performance in a Chinese cohort.
methodsWe retrospectively collected clinical data from newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) patients and followed them up. Clinical characteristics, therapeutic responses, and survival were compared between high-risk and standard-risk groups defined by mSMART 4.0. Harrell's concordance index (C-index) analysis was used to compare the predictive efficacy of mSMART 4.0 versus version 3.0.
resultsAmong 202 patients, 69 (34.2%) were high-risk according to mSMART 4.0. The mSMART 4.0 high-risk group demonstrated significantly lower deep response rates, alongside shorter median PFS (P < 0.001) and OS (P < 0.001). The proportion of the high-risk group was lower under mSMART 4.0 (34.2%) compared to mSMART 3.0 (51.9%). C-index revealed that mSMART 4.0 possessed superior prognostic predictive validity (C-index = 0.738, 95% CI: 0.677-0.792) relative to mSMART 3.0 (C-index = 0.572, 95% CI: 0.490-0.649). The increase in the C-index was statistically significant (ΔC-index = 0.167, 95% CI: 0.065-0.269, P = 0.003). Multivariate analysis identified mSMART 4.0 high-risk status as an independent adverse prognostic factor for both PFS (HR = 2.027; 95% CI: 1.364-3.012) and OS (HR = 5.352; 95% CI: 2.794-10.250). Additionally, elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) was an independent predictor of poor PFS (HR = 1.002; 95% CI: 1.001-1.004).
conclusionIn this Chinese cohort, mSMART 4.0 effectively stratifies multiple myeloma patients and serves as an independent predictor of inferior prognosis, demonstrating superior prognostic value over version 3.0.
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.