ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2022
Glioblastoma Molecular Classification Tool Based on mRNA Analysis: From Wet-Lab to Subtype.
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Data to Decision: Integrating Bioinformatics into Glioma Patient Stratification and Immunotherapy Selection.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence-Driven Multi-Omics Approaches in Glioblastoma.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Glioblastoma Therapy: Past, Present and Future.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
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
Most glioblastoma studies incorporate the layer of tumor molecular subtype based on the four-subtype classification system proposed in 2010. Nevertheless, there is no universally recognized and convenient tool for glioblastoma molecular subtyping, and each study applies a different set of markers and/or approaches that cause inconsistencies in data comparability and reproducibility between studies. Thus, this study aimed to create an applicable user-friendly tool for glioblastoma classification, with high accuracy, while using a significantly smaller number of variables. The study incorporated a TCGA microarray, sequencing datasets, and an independent cohort of 56 glioblastomas (LUHS cohort). The models were constructed by applying the Agilent G4502 dataset, and they were tested using the Affymetrix HG-U133a and Illumina Hiseq cohorts, as well as the LUHS cases. Two classification models were constructed by applying a logistic regression classification algorithm, based on the mRNA levels of twenty selected genes. The classifiers were translated to a RT-qPCR assay and validated in an independent cohort of 56 glioblastomas. The classification accuracy of the 20-gene and 5-gene classifiers varied between 90.7-91% and 85.9-87.7%, respectively. With this work, we propose a cost-efficient three-class (classical, mesenchymal, and proneural) tool for glioblastoma molecular classification based on the mRNA analysis of only 5-20 genes, and we provide the basic information for classification performance starting from the wet-lab stage. We hope that the proposed classification tool will enable data comparability between different research groups.
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.