Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33333810›Full record

ArticleCells2020

Different Calculation Strategies Are Congruent in Determining Chemotherapy Resistance of Brain Tumors In Vitro.

Igor Fischer, Ann-Christin Nickel, Nan Qin, Kübra Taban, David Pauck, Hans-Jakob Steiger, Marcel Kamp, Sajjad Muhammad, Daniel Hänggi, Ellen Fritsche and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cells, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

12 authors.

Igor FischerClinic for Neurosurgery, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6347-6346
Ann-Christin NickelClinic for Neurosurgery, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany.
Nan QinDepartment of Pediatric Oncology, Hematology, and Clinical Immunology, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Düsseldorf, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany.
Kübra TabanDepartment of Pediatric Oncology, Hematology, and Clinical Immunology, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Düsseldorf, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany.
David PauckDepartment of Pediatric Oncology, Hematology, and Clinical Immunology, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Düsseldorf, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany.
Hans-Jakob SteigerClinic for Neurosurgery, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany.
Marcel KampClinic for Neurosurgery, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany.
Sajjad MuhammadClinic for Neurosurgery, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany.
Daniel HänggiClinic for Neurosurgery, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany.
Ellen FritscheIUF-Leibniz Research Institute for Environmental Medicine, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany.
Marc RemkeDepartment of Pediatric Oncology, Hematology, and Clinical Immunology, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Düsseldorf, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany.
Ulf Dietrich KahlertClinic for Neurosurgery, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6021-1841

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In cancer pharmacology, a drug candidate's therapeutic potential is typically expressed as its ability to suppress cell growth. Different methods in assessing the cell phenotype and calculating the drug effect have been established. However, inconsistencies in drug response outcomes have been reported, and it is still unclear whether and to what extent the choice of data post-processing methods is responsible for that. Studies that systematically examine these questions are rare. Here, we compare three established calculation methods on a collection of nine in vitro models of glioblastoma, exposed to a library of 231 clinical drugs. The therapeutic potential of the drugs is determined on the growth curves, using growth inhibition 50% (GI50) and point-of-departure (PoD) as the criteria. An effect is detected on 36% of the drugs when relying on GI50 and on 27% when using PoD. For the area under the curve (AUC), a threshold of 9.5 or 10 could be set to discriminate between the drugs with and without an effect. GI50, PoD, and AUC are highly correlated. The ranking of substances by different criteria varies somewhat, but the group of the top 20 substances according to one criterion typically includes 17-19 top candidates according to another. In addition to generating preclinical values with high clinical potential, we present off-target appreciation of top substance predictions by interrogating the drug response data of non-cancer cells in our calculation technology.

Indexed as

Drug Resistance, NeoplasmAntineoplastic AgentsArea Under CurveBortezomibBrain NeoplasmsCell Line, TumorGlycineHumansSulfonesAntineoplastic AgentsBortezomibGlycineON 01910Sulfonesdrug responseglioblastomain vitro pharmacologymathematical modelingoff-target riskquantification

Identifiers

PMID33333810
PMCPMC7765228

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.