Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36650768›Full record

ArticleMathematical biosciences and engineering : MBE2023

A data assimilation framework to predict the response of glioma cells to radiation.

Junyan Liu, David A Hormuth Ii, Jianchen Yang, Thomas E Yankeelov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Mathematical biosciences and engineering : MBE, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

4 authors.

Junyan LiuDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, 107 W Dean Keeton Street Stop C0800, Austin, TX 78712, USA.
David A Hormuth IiOden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, 201 E. 24th Street POB 4.102 Stop C0200, Austin, TX 78712, USA.
Jianchen YangDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, 107 W Dean Keeton Street Stop C0800, Austin, TX 78712, USA.
Thomas E YankeelovDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, 107 W Dean Keeton Street Stop C0800, Austin, TX 78712, USA.

Funding

INTEGRATING OMICS AND QUANTITATIVE IMAGING DATA IN CO-CLINICAL TRIALS TO PREDICT TREATMENT RESPONSE IN TRIPLE NEGATIVE BREAST CANCERU24CA226110 · NCI · BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE · PI LEWIS, MICHAEL T., RUBIN, DANIEL L · 2019 to 2023
$3.2M
Clinical Development of Rhenium Nanoliposomes (RNL186) for GlioblastomaR01CA235800 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCIENCE CENTER · PI BRENNER, ANDREW JACOB · 2019 to 2023
$3.0M
Image Driven Multi-Scale Modeling to Predict Treatment Response in Breast CancerU01CA174706 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI QUARANTA, VITO, YANKEELOV, THOMAS E · 2013 to 2018
$2.5M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA235800NCI NIH HHS U01 CA174706NCI NIH HHS U24 CA226110
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We incorporate a practical data assimilation methodology into our previously established experimental-computational framework to predict the heterogeneous response of glioma cells receiving fractionated radiation treatment. Replicates of 9L and C6 glioma cells grown in 96-well plates were irradiated with six different fractionation schemes and imaged via time-resolved microscopy to yield 360- and 286-time courses for the 9L and C6 lines, respectively. These data were used to calibrate a biology-based mathematical model and then make predictions within two different scenarios. For Scenario 1, 70% of the time courses are fit to the model and the resulting parameter values are averaged. These average values, along with the initial cell number, initialize the model to predict the temporal evolution for each test time course (10% of the data). In Scenario 2, the predictions for the test cases are made with model parameters initially assigned from the training data, but then updated with new measurements every 24 hours via four versions of a data assimilation framework. We then compare the predictions made from Scenario 1 and the best version of Scenario 2 to the experimentally measured microscopy measurements using the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). Across all fractionation schemes, Scenario 1 achieved a CCC value (mean ± standard deviation) of 0.845 ± 0.185 and 0.726 ± 0.195 for the 9L and C6 cell lines, respectively. For the best data assimilation version from Scenario 2 (validated with the last 20% of the data), the CCC values significantly increased to 0.954 ± 0.056 (p = 0.002) and 0.901 ± 0.061 (p = 8.9e-5) for the 9L and C6 cell lines, respectively. Thus, we have developed a data assimilation approach that incorporates an experimental-computational system to accurately predict the in vitro response of glioma cells to fractionated radiation therapy.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsGliomaCell LineHumansMicroscopyModels, Theoreticalbiology-based modelbrain cancercalibrationglioblastomain vitromathematical modelmechanism-basedtime-resolved microscopy

Identifiers

PMID36650768
PMCPMC11165419

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.