ArticlePloS one2025
Integrative analysis of epigenetic subtypes in acute myeloid Leukemia: A multi-center study combining machine learning for prognostic and therapeutic insights.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Putting the I in AML: Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Acute Myeloid Leukemia.Cells · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence-based prognostic models in acute myeloid leukemia: systematic review and meta-analysis.Blood neoplasia · 2026Article
- Neurosurgery as an immune anchor point: a translational framework for perioperative immunoengineering.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Beyond the DNA sequence: mapping the dynamic epigenetic landscape for risk stratification and therapeutic intervention in acute myeloid leukemia.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2025Review
- Multi-omics exploration of chaperone-mediated immune-proteostasis crosstalk in vascular dementia and identification of diagnostic biomarkers.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) exhibits significant heterogeneity in clinical outcomes, yet current prognostic stratification systems based on genetic alterations alone cannot fully capture this complexity. This study aimed to develop an integrated epigenetic-based classification system and evaluate its prognostic value.
methodsWe performed multi-omics analysis on five independent cohorts totaling 1,103 AML patients. The Cancer Genome Atlas-Acute Myeloid Leukemia (TCGA-LAML) cohort (n = 83) provided comprehensive multi-omics data including DNA methylation profiles (Illumina 450K platform), RNA sequencing (mRNA, lncRNA, and miRNA), and somatic mutation profiles. The BEAT (n = 649), TARGET (n = 156), GSE12417 (n = 79), and GSE37642 (n = 136) cohorts contributed transcriptome data. Molecular subtypes were identified using empirical Bayes-based clustering on the TCGA cohort. LSC17 scores were calculated using a validated 17-gene expression signature. A random survival forest model was developed integrating molecular features with LSC17 scores, validated across all cohorts. Immune microenvironment analysis employed multiple deconvolution methods (ESTIMATE, CIBERSORT, xCell) and pathway analysis (GSVA, GSEA). Drug sensitivity was predicted using the pRRophetic algorithm with GDSC database reference.
resultsMulti-omics integration revealed two molecularly distinct AML subtypes with significant survival differences (CS2 vs CS1, P < 0.001). The random survival forest model, incorporating 20 key epigenetic features (including CPNE8, CD109, and CHRDL1) and LSC17 scores, achieved superior prognostic accuracy (C-index: 0.72-0.78) across validation cohorts. Both epigenetic risk score (HR = 2.45, 95%CI: 1.86-3.24) and LSC17 score (HR = 1.89, 95%CI: 1.42-2.51) maintained independent prognostic value in multivariate analysis. Integration of both scores in a nomogram improved 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival predictions (C-index: 0.81). High-risk patients exhibited distinct immune profiles with elevated M2 macrophages (1.8-fold) and Tregs (2.3-fold), while low-risk patients showed enhanced NK cell activity (2.1-fold). Drug sensitivity analysis identified differential responses to epigenetic regulators (LAQ824, P = 0.000139; MS-275, P = 0.00104) and proteasome inhibitors (Bortezomib, P = 0.00747; MG-132, P = 0.0106) between risk groups.
conclusionsThis integrated classification system combining epigenetic features and stem cell signatures provides new insights into AML heterogeneity and therapeutic targeting. The complementary nature of epigenetic and stem cell-related prognostic factors suggests potential for improved risk stratification in clinical practice. Future prospective validation studies are warranted to confirm these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.