Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31332251›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Transcriptome profiling-based identification of prognostic subtypes and multi-omics signatures of glioblastoma.

Junseong Park, Jin-Kyoung Shim, Seon-Jin Yoon, Se Hoon Kim, Jong Hee Chang, Seok-Gu Kang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Artificial Intelligence-Driven Multi-Omics Approaches in Glioblastoma.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Junseong ParkDepartment of Neurosurgery, Brain Tumor Center, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0436-8614
Jin-Kyoung ShimDepartment of Neurosurgery, Brain Tumor Center, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Seon-Jin YoonDepartment of Neurosurgery, Brain Tumor Center, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Se Hoon KimDepartment of Pathology, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7516-7372
Jong Hee ChangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Brain Tumor Center, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1509-9800
Seok-Gu KangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Brain Tumor Center, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. seokgu9@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5676-2037

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Glioblastoma (GBM) is a lethal tumor, but few biomarkers and molecular subtypes predicting prognosis are available. This study was aimed to identify prognostic subtypes and multi-omics signatures for GBM. Using oncopression and TCGA-GBM datasets, we identified 80 genes most associated with GBM prognosis using correlations between gene expression levels and overall survival of patients. The prognostic score of each sample was calculated using these genes, followed by assigning three prognostic subtypes. This classification was validated in two independent datasets (REMBRANDT and Severance). Functional annotation revealed that invasion- and cell cycle-related gene sets were enriched in poor and favorable group, respectively. The three GBM subtypes were therefore named invasive (poor), mitotic (favorable), and intermediate. Interestingly, invasive subtype showed increased invasiveness, and MGMT methylation was enriched in mitotic subtype, indicating need for different therapeutic strategies according to prognostic subtypes. For clinical convenience, we also identified genes that best distinguished the invasive and mitotic subtypes. Immunohistochemical staining showed that markedly higher expression of PDPN in invasive subtype and of TMEM100 in mitotic subtype (P < 0.001). We expect that this transcriptome-based classification, with multi-omics signatures and biomarkers, can improve molecular understanding of GBM, ultimately leading to precise stratification of patients for therapeutic interventions.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorBrain NeoplasmsDatabases, GeneticFemaleGene Expression ProfilingGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticGene Regulatory NetworksGlioblastomaHumansMaleMembrane GlycoproteinsMembrane ProteinsMitosisNeoplasm InvasivenessPodoplaninPrognosisBiomarkers, TumorMembrane GlycoproteinsMembrane ProteinsPDPN protein, humanPodoplaninTMEM100 protein, human

Identifiers

PMID31332251
PMCPMC6646357

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.