Cited by 32Multiple Myeloma Research and TreatmentsCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research

Genomic landscape of multiple myeloma and its precursor conditions

Open access

Abstract

Reliable strategies to capture patients at risk of progression from precursor stages of multiple myeloma (MM) to overt disease are still missing. We assembled a comprehensive collection of MM genomic data comprising 1,030 patients (218 with precursor conditions) that we used to identify recurrent coding and non-coding candidate drivers as well as significant hotspots of structural variation. We used those drivers to define and validate a simple ‘MM-like’ score, which we could use to place patients’ tumors on a gradual axis of progression toward active disease. Our MM precursor genomic map provides insights into the time of initiation and cell-of-origin of the disease, order of acquisition of genomic alterations and mutational processes found across the stages of transformation. Taken together, we highlight here the potential of genome sequencing to better inform risk assessment and monitoring of MM precursor conditions. The genomic features of precursor conditions of multiple myeloma provide multiple biological insights into disease origins and evolution, together with opportunities to identify those at highest risk of progression.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41588-025-02196-0

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • All cases of multiple myeloma are preceded by precursor conditions such as smoldering multiple myeloma and monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance, often decades before diagnosis.

    “MM is well-described to be universally preceded by precursor states, often decades before it is even diagnosed.”

    From Evolution of Multiple Myeloma from a Genomic Perspective (2026) · cites this paper as [9]

    The Main section identifies MGUS and SMM as precursor stages of MM, and the Results section ‘Molecular tumor age of MGUS/SMM’ estimates a median molecular tumor age of 33 years in the MM samples studied. These passages support a decades-long disease history in some cases, but they do not establish that every MM case passes through those precursor states or that every precursor state lasts decades before MM diagnosis. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Virtually all documented HY cases exhibit clear germinal-center mutagenesis acquired before the duplication, which excludes a pre-germinal-center origin.

    “Virtually all HY cases documented so far exhibit clear GC mutagenesis acquired before the duplication, which excludes a pre-GC origin.9,12,13,69”

    From Evolution of Multiple Myeloma from a Genomic Perspective (2026) · cites this paper as [9]

    The Results section on mutational processes (page unavailable) reports that early mutations in patients with hyperdiploidy were enriched for SBS9, an AID-associated signature. The cell-of-origin Results (page unavailable) also says predictions using mutations acquired before genomic amplifications were consistent with mature B-cell differentiation. Neither passage establishes this pattern in virtually all HY cases or rules out a pre-germinal-center origin. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Initial development of HY occurs at a very early age, in the 2nd and 3rd decade of life, with acquisition of additional trisomies and aneuploidies in subsequent decades.

    “Different independent studies have indicated initial development of HY at a very early age, in 2nd and 3rd decade of life with acquisition of additional trisomies and aneuploidies in subsequent decade.9,10,12,13,15”

    From Evolution of Multiple Myeloma from a Genomic Perspective (2026) · cites this paper as [9]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says the first oncogenic events occur in the second or third decades of life, and the Results identify hyperdiploidy as an initiating event in the tumors used for age estimation. The paper does not establish that additional trisomies and aneuploidies are acquired in subsequent decades; its Methods instead treat hyperdiploidy as a single event. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • RAS mutations, MYC translocations, APOBEC mutagenesis, and patterns of genomic complexity are the most commonly reported alterations in progressing multiple myeloma.

    “Among these, RAS mutations, MYC translocations, APOBEC mutagenesis, and patterns of genomic complexity are the most commonly reported.8,9,11,69,76-83,84”

    From Evolution of Multiple Myeloma from a Genomic Perspective (2026) · cites this paper as [9]

    The Results sections on serially sampled SMM and structural variation link acquired KRAS/NRAS mutations and MYC translocations to progression. The mutational-processes section also describes APOBEC activity emerging after precursor initiation, while the genomic-score section reports more driver events at later disease stages. The paper does not establish that these four categories are the most commonly reported alterations in progressing multiple myeloma (page numbers unavailable in our copy). (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In contrast to progressive SMM, MM genomic defining events are usually not seen in stable and indolent MGUS/SMM.

    “In contrast to progressive SMM, these MM genomic defining events are usually not seen in stable and indolent MGUS/SMM.9,11”

    From Evolution of Multiple Myeloma from a Genomic Perspective (2026) · cites this paper as [9]

    The Results section, “The MM-like genomic score captures disease progression” (page unavailable), reports that MM-enriched alterations are more common in MM and that a higher MM-like score predicts progression in SMM. But low-risk SMM and MGUS still had median MM-like scores of 1, so the paper does not establish that these events are usually absent from stable or indolent MGUS/SMM. The serial-sampling Results report largely stable scores in non-progressors, not absence of the events. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 79

  1. [2]Kyle, R. A. et al. Clinical course and prognosis of smoldering (asymptomatic) multiple myeloma. N. Engl. J. Med. 356, 2582–2590 (2007). 17582068 · DOI · Paper page
  2. [4]Lakshman, A. et al. Risk stratification of smoldering multiple myeloma incorporating revised IMWG diagnostic criteria. Blood Cancer J. 8, 59 (2018). 29895887 PMC5997745 · DOI
  3. [5]Mateos, M.-V. et al. International Myeloma Working Group risk stratification model for smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM). Blood Cancer J. 10, 102 (2020). 33067414 PMC7567803 · DOI · Paper page
  4. [6]Cowan, A. et al. Personalised progression prediction in patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance or smouldering multiple myeloma (PANGEA): a retrospective, multicohort study. Lancet Haematol. 10, e203–e212 (2023). 36858677 PMC9991855 · DOI · Paper page
  5. [7]Kazandjian, D. et al. Genomic profiling to contextualize the results of intervention for smoldering multiple myeloma. Clin. Cancer Res. 30, 4482–4490 (2024). 38652812 PMC11444893 · DOI · Paper page
  6. [9]Boyle, E. M. et al. The molecular make up of smoldering myeloma highlights the evolutionary pathways leading to multiple myeloma. Nat. Commun. 12, 293 (2021). 33436579 PMC7804406 · DOI · Paper page
  7. [11]Abdallah, N. H. et al. Mode of progression in smoldering multiple myeloma: a study of 406 patients. Blood Cancer J. 14, 9 (2024). 38228628 PMC10791688 · DOI
  8. [12]Walker, B. A. et al. Intraclonal heterogeneity is a critical early event in the development of myeloma and precedes the development of clinical symptoms. Leukemia 28, 384–390 (2014). 23817176 PMC3916874 · DOI
  9. [14]Mikulasova, A. et al. The spectrum of somatic mutations in monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance indicates a less complex genomic landscape than that in multiple myeloma. Haematologica 102, 1617–1625 (2017). 28550183 PMC5685224 · DOI · Paper page
  10. [15]Bolli, N. et al. Genomic patterns of progression in smoldering multiple myeloma. Nat. Commun. 9, 3363 (2018). 30135448 PMC6105687 · DOI · Paper page
  11. [16]Dutta, A. K. et al. Subclonal evolution in disease progression from MGUS/SMM to multiple myeloma is characterised by clonal stability. Leukemia 33, 457–468 (2019). 30046162 PMC6365384 · DOI
  12. [17]Maura, F. et al. Genomic landscape and chronological reconstruction of driver events in multiple myeloma. Nat. Commun. 10, 3835 (2019). 31444325 PMC6707220 · DOI · Paper page
  13. [18]Dutta, A. K. et al. MinimuMM-seq: genome sequencing of circulating tumor cells for minimally invasive molecular characterization of multiple myeloma pathology. Cancer Discov. 13, 348–363 (2023). 36477267 · DOI · Paper page
  14. [19]Ellis, P. et al. Reliable detection of somatic mutations in solid tissues by laser-capture microdissection and low-input DNA sequencing. Nat. Protoc. 16, 841–871 (2021). 33318691 · DOI
  15. [20]Lawrence, M. S. et al. Discovery and saturation analysis of cancer genes across 21 tumour types. Nature 505, 495–501 (2014). 24390350 PMC4048962 · DOI · Paper page
  16. [21]Cortes, M. & Georgopoulos, K. Aiolos is required for the generation of high affinity bone marrow plasma cells responsible for long-term immunity. J. Exp. Med. 199, 209–219 (2004). 14718515 PMC2211773 · DOI
  17. [22]Lazarian, G. et al. A hotspot mutation in transcription factor IKZF3 drives B cell neoplasia via transcriptional dysregulation. Cancer Cell 39, 380–393.e8 (2021). 33689703 PMC8034546 · DOI
  18. [24]Manier, S. et al. Genomic complexity of multiple myeloma and its clinical implications. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 14, 100–113 (2017). 27531699 · DOI
  19. [25]Rustad, E. H. et al. Timing the initiation of multiple myeloma. Nat. Commun. 11, 1917 (2020). 32317634 PMC7174344 · DOI · Paper page
  20. [26]Barwick, B. G., Gupta, V. A., Vertino, P. M. & Boise, L. H. Cell of origin and genetic alterations in the pathogenesis of multiple myeloma. Front. Immunol. 10, 1121 (2019). 31231360 PMC6558388 · DOI
  21. [27]Walker, B. A. et al. Characterization of IGH locus breakpoints in multiple myeloma indicates a subset of translocations appear to occur in pregerminal center B cells. Blood 121, 3413–3419 (2013). 23435460 · DOI · Paper page
  22. [28]Kumar, S. K. et al. Multiple myeloma. Nat. Rev. Dis. Prim. 3, 17046 (2017). 28726797 · DOI
  23. [29]Kübler, K. et al. Tumor mutational landscape is a record of the pre-malignant state. Preprint at bioRxiv10.1101/517565 (2019).
  24. [30]Machado, H. E. et al. Diverse mutational landscapes in human lymphocytes. Nature 608, 724–732 (2022). 35948631 PMC9402440 · DOI · Paper page
  25. [31]Teh, Y., Jordan, M., Beal, M. & Blei, D. Sharing clusters among related groups: hierarchical Dirichlet processes. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 17, 1623–1634 (2004).
  26. [32]Alexandrov, L. B. et al. The repertoire of mutational signatures in human cancer. Nature 578, 94–101 (2020). 32025018 PMC7054213 · DOI · Paper page
  27. [34]Kasar, S. et al. Whole-genome sequencing reveals activation-induced cytidine deaminase signatures during indolent chronic lymphocytic leukaemia evolution. Nat. Commun. 6, 8866 (2015). 26638776 PMC4686820 · DOI
  28. [35]Landau, D. A. et al. Mutations driving CLL and their evolution in progression and relapse. Nature 526, 525–530 (2015). 26466571 PMC4815041 · DOI
  29. [36]Roberts, S. A. et al. An APOBEC cytidine deaminase mutagenesis pattern is widespread in human cancers. Nat. Genet. 45, 970–976 (2013). 23852170 PMC3789062 · DOI
  30. [38]Oben, B. et al. Whole-genome sequencing reveals progressive versus stable myeloma precursor conditions as two distinct entities. Nat. Commun. 12, 1861 (2021). 33767199 PMC7994386 · DOI · Paper page
  31. [39]Sherman, M. A. et al. Genome-wide mapping of somatic mutation rates uncovers drivers of cancer. Nat. Biotechnol. 40, 1634–1643 (2022). 35726091 PMC9646522 · DOI · Paper page
  32. [40]Skerget, S. et al. Comprehensive molecular profiling of multiple myeloma identifies refined copy number and expression subtypes. Nat. Genet. 56, 1878–1889 (2024). 39160255 PMC11387199 · DOI · Paper page
  33. [41]Derrien, J. et al. Acquired resistance to a GPRC5D-directed T-cell engager in multiple myeloma is mediated by genetic or epigenetic target inactivation. Nat. Cancer 4, 1536–1543 (2023). 37653140 · DOI
  34. [42]Lee, H. et al. Mechanisms of antigen escape from BCMA- or GPRC5D-targeted immunotherapies in multiple myeloma. Nat. Med. 29, 2295–2306 (2023). 37653344 PMC10504087 · DOI
  35. [43]Manier, S. et al. Whole-exome sequencing of cell-free DNA and circulating tumor cells in multiple myeloma. Nat. Commun. 9, 1691 (2018). 29703982 PMC5923255 · DOI
  36. [44]Mishima, Y. et al. The mutational landscape of circulating tumor cells in multiple myeloma. Cell Rep. 19, 218–224 (2017). 28380360 PMC5439509 · DOI
  37. [45]Garcés, J.-J. et al. Circulating tumor cells for comprehensive and multiregional non-invasive genetic characterization of multiple myeloma. Leukemia 34, 3007–3018 (2020). 32475991 · DOI
  38. [46]Guo, G. et al. Genomic discovery and clonal tracking in multiple myeloma by cell-free DNA sequencing. Leukemia 32, 1838–1841 (2018). 29749395 PMC6160352 · DOI
  39. [47]Lohr, J. G. et al. Genetic interrogation of circulating multiple myeloma cells at single-cell resolution. Sci. Transl. Med. 8, 363ra147 (2016). 27807282 PMC5426804 · DOI
  40. [48]Deshpande, S. et al. Monitoring treatment response and disease progression in myeloma with circulating cell‐free DNA. Eur. J. Haematol. 106, 230–240 (2021). 33107092 · DOI
  41. [49]Waldschmidt, J. M. et al. Cell-free DNA for the detection of emerging treatment failure in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Leukemia 36, 1078–1087 (2022). 35027656 PMC8983453 · DOI
  42. [50]Knisbacher, B. A. et al. Molecular map of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and its impact on outcome. Nat. Genet. 54, 1664–1674 (2022). 35927489 PMC10084830 · DOI
  43. [51]Leshchiner, I. et al. Comprehensive analysis of tumour initiation, spatial and temporal progression under multiple lines of treatment. Preprint at bioRxiv10.1101/508127 (2019).
  44. [53]Sigurbergsdóttir, A. Ý. et al. Disease associations with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance can only be evaluated using screened cohorts: results from the population-based iStopMM study. Haematologica 108, 3392 (2023). 37439374 PMC10690899 · DOI
  45. [54]Rajkumar, S. V. et al. International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 15, e538–e548 (2014). 25439696 · DOI · Paper page
  46. [55]Cordas dos Santos, D. M. et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of nonrelapse mortality after CAR T cell therapy. Nat. Med. 30, 2667–2678 (2024). 38977912 PMC11765209 · DOI
  47. [56]Parreno, V. et al. Transient loss of Polycomb components induces an epigenetic cancer fate. Nature 629, 688–696 (2024). 38658752 PMC11096130 · DOI
  48. [57]Cordas dos Santos, D. M., Toenges, R., Bertamini, L., Alberge, J.-B. & Ghobrial, I. M. New horizons in our understanding of precursor multiple myeloma and early interception. Nat. Rev. Cancer 24, 867–886 (2024). 39414947 · DOI
  49. [58]Duncavage, E. J. et al. Genome sequencing as an alternative to cytogenetic analysis in myeloid cancers. N. Engl. J. Med. 384, 924–935 (2021). 33704937 PMC8130455 · DOI
  50. [59]Carter, S. L. et al. Absolute quantification of somatic DNA alterations in human cancer. Nat. Biotechnol. 30, 413–421 (2012). 22544022 PMC4383288 · DOI
  51. [60]Love, M. I., Huber, W. & Anders, S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 15, 550 (2014). 25516281 PMC4302049 · DOI · Paper page
  52. [61]Harris, P. A. et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J. Biomed. Inform. 42, 377–381 (2009). 18929686 PMC2700030 · DOI · Paper page
  53. [64]Li, H. Aligning sequence reads, clone sequences and assembly contigs with BWA-MEM. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3997 (2013). · arXiv
  54. [65]Cibulskis, K. et al. Sensitive detection of somatic point mutations in impure and heterogeneous cancer samples. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 213–219 (2013). 23396013 PMC3833702 · DOI
  55. [66]Kim, S. et al. Strelka2: fast and accurate calling of germline and somatic variants. Nat. Methods 15, 591–594 (2018). 30013048 · DOI
  56. [67]Costello, M. et al. Discovery and characterization of artifactual mutations in deep coverage targeted capture sequencing data due to oxidative DNA damage during sample preparation. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, e67 (2013). 23303777 PMC3616734 · DOI
  57. [68]Kent, W. J. BLAT—the BLAST-like alignment tool. Genome Res. 12, 656–664 (2002). 11932250 PMC187518
  58. [69]Taylor-Weiner, A. et al. DeTiN: overcoming tumor-in-normal contamination. Nat. Methods 15, 531–534 (2018). 29941871 PMC6528031 · DOI
  59. [70]Javed, N. et al. Detecting sample swaps in diverse NGS data types using linkage disequilibrium. Nat. Commun. 11, 3697 (2020). 32728101 PMC7391710 · DOI
  60. [71]Cibulskis, K. et al. ContEst: estimating cross-contamination of human samples in next-generation sequencing data. Bioinformatics 27, 2601–2602 (2011). 21803805 PMC3167057 · DOI
  61. [72]Wienand, K. et al. Genomic analyses of flow-sorted Hodgkin Reed–Sternberg cells reveal complementary mechanisms of immune evasion. Blood Adv. 3, 4065–4080 (2019). 31816062 PMC6963251 · DOI
  62. [73]Leshchiner, I. et al. Inferring early genetic progression in cancers with unobtainable premalignant disease. Nat. Cancer 4, 550–563 (2023). 37081260 PMC10132986 · DOI
  63. [74]Chen, X. et al. Manta: rapid detection of structural variants and indels for germline and cancer sequencing applications. Bioinformatics 32, 1220–1222 (2016). 26647377 · DOI
  64. [75]Wala, J. A. et al. SvABA: genome-wide detection of structural variants and indels by local assembly. Genome Res. 28, 581–591 (2018). 29535149 PMC5880247 · DOI
  65. [76]Drier, Y. et al. Somatic rearrangements across cancer reveal classes of samples with distinct patterns of DNA breakage and rearrangement-induced hypermutability. Genome Res. 23, 228–235 (2013). 23124520 PMC3561864 · DOI
  66. [77]Morton, L. M. et al. Radiation-related genomic profile of papillary thyroid carcinoma after the Chernobyl accident. Science 372, eabg2538 (2021). 33888599 PMC9022889 · DOI
  67. [78]Robinson, J. T. et al. Integrative genomics viewer. Nat. Biotechnol. 29, 24–26 (2011). 21221095 PMC3346182 · DOI · Paper page
  68. [79]Mermel, C. H. et al. GISTIC2.0 facilitates sensitive and confident localization of the targets of focal somatic copy-number alteration in human cancers. Genome Biol. 12, R41 (2011). 21527027 PMC3218867 · DOI
  69. [80]Rheinbay, E. et al. Analyses of non-coding somatic drivers in 2,658 cancer whole genomes. Nature 578, 102–111 (2020). 32025015 PMC7054214 · DOI
  70. [81]Loinaz, X. et al. SVelfie: a method for discovering cancer drivers based on enrichment of likely functional structural variants. Preprint at bioRxiv10.1101/2025.03.09.642284 (2025).
  71. [82]Moore, L. et al. The mutational landscape of human somatic and germline cells. Nature 597, 381–386 (2021). 34433962 · DOI · Paper page
  72. [83]Gerstung, M. et al. The evolutionary history of 2,658 cancers. Nature 578, 122–128 (2020). 32025013 PMC7054212 · DOI · Paper page
  73. [84]Coorens, T. H. et al. Lineage-independent tumors in bilateral neuroblastoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 383, 1860–1865 (2020). 33211929 PMC7611571 · DOI
  74. [86]Turner, H. & Firth, D. Bradley–Terry models in R: the BradleyTerry2 package. J. Stat. Softw. 48, 1–21 (2012). · DOI
  75. [87]Maura, F. et al. Initial whole-genome sequencing of plasma cell neoplasms in first responders and recovery workers exposed to the World Trade Center attack of September 11, 2001. Clin. Cancer Res. 27, 2111–2118 (2021). 33504553 PMC8026670 · DOI · Paper page
  76. [88]Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 57, 289–300 (1995). · DOI · Paper page
  77. [89]Abascal, F. et al. Expanded encyclopaedias of DNA elements in the human and mouse genomes. Nature 583, 699–710 (2020). 32728249 PMC7410828 · DOI · Paper page
  78. [93]Alberge, J.-B. et al. Novel non-coding candidate drivers of multiple myeloma linked to plasma cell tumor biology and B cell development. Blood 144, 1894 (2024). · DOI
  79. [94]Alberge, J.-B. et al. A 1,000-genome map for multiple myeloma and its precursor stages, and its impact on clinical outcome. Blood 144, 1019 (2024). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Alberge, J.-B., Dutta, A. K., Poletti, A., Coorens, T. H. H., Lightbody, E. D., Toenges, R., Loinaz, X., Wallin, S., Dunford, A., Priebe, O., Dagan, J., Boehner, C. J., Horowitz, E., Su, N. K., Barr, H., Hevenor, L., Towle, K., Beesam, R., Beckwith, J. B., Perry, J., Cordas dos Santos, D. M., Bertamini, L., Greipp, P. T., Kübler, K., Arndt, P. F., Terragna, C., Zamagni, E., Boyle, E. M., Yong, K., Morgan, G., Walker, B. A., Dimopoulos, M. A., Kastritis, E., Hess, J., Sklavenitis-Pistofidis, R., Stewart, C., Getz, G., & Ghobrial, I. M.
Affiliations
  • Broad Institute (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics (DE)
  • Istituto di Ematologia di Bologna (IT)
  • University College London (GB)
  • NYU Langone Health (US)
  • Indiana University Indianapolis (US)
  • National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (GR)
Corresponding author
  • Getz, Gad
  • Ghobrial, Irene M.
Venue
Nature Genetics
Published
2025-05-21
Volume
57
Issue
6
Pages
1493-1503
ISSN
  • 1061-4036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1718
OpenAlex
W4410546383
Cited by
32
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 14
FWCI
23.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Genetics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • EIF | Stand Up To Cancer (SU2C-AACR-DT-28-18)
  • Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation (-)
  • Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Medical Research Foundation (-)
  • International Myeloma Society Career Development Award
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Multiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Acute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Keywords
multiple myeloma, monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance, disease progression, structural variants, mutational processes, cell of origin, disease evolution, risk stratification
MeSH terms
Humans, Multiple Myeloma, Mutation, Precancerous Conditions, Genome, Human, Disease Progression, Genomics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review