SynthesisPloS one2022
Analytic approaches to clinical validation of results from preclinical models of glioblastoma: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Temporal Integration of Serum Proteomics, Metabolomics and MRI Tumor Volumetrics via Deep Learning Identifies Systemic Mediators of Glioblastoma Response to Chemoradiotherapy.Research square · 2026Article
- Glioblastoma survival is associated with distinct proteomic alteration signatures post chemoirradiation in a large-scale proteomic panel.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- The Next Frontier in Health Disparities-A Closer Look at Exploring Sex Differences in Glioma Data and Omics Analysis, from Bench to Bedside and Back.Biomolecules · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAnalytic approaches to clinical validation of results from preclinical models are important in assessment of their relevance to human disease. This systematic review examined consistency in reporting of glioblastoma cohorts from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) or Chinese Glioma Genome Atlas (CGGA) and assessed whether studies included patient characteristics in their survival analyses.
methodsWe searched Embase and Medline on 02Feb21 for studies using preclinical models of glioblastoma published after Jan2008 that used data from TCGA or CGGA to validate the association between at least one molecular marker and overall survival in adult patients with glioblastoma. Main data items included cohort characteristics, statistical significance of the survival analysis, and model covariates.
resultsThere were 58 eligible studies from 1,751 non-duplicate records investigating 126 individual molecular markers. In 14 studies published between 2017 and 2020 using TCGA RNA microarray data that should have the same cohort, the median number of patients was 464.5 (interquartile range 220.5-525). Of the 15 molecular markers that underwent more than one univariable or multivariable survival analyses, five had discrepancies between studies. Covariates used in the 17 studies that used multivariable survival analyses were age (76.5%), pre-operative functional status (35.3%), sex (29.4%) MGMT promoter methylation (29.4%), radiotherapy (23.5%), chemotherapy (17.6%), IDH mutation (17.6%) and extent of resection (5.9%).
conclusionPreclinical glioblastoma studies that used TCGA for validation did not provide sufficient information about their cohort selection and there were inconsistent results. Transparency in reporting and the use of analytic approaches that adjust for clinical variables can improve the reproducibility between studies.
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.