ArticleMathematical biosciences and engineering : MBE2023
A data assimilation framework to predict the response of glioma cells to radiation.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting head and neck cancer response to radiotherapy using mathematical modeling of MRI-based habitats.NPJ precision oncology · 2026Article
- A data assimilation framework for predicting the spatiotemporal response of high-grade gliomas to chemoradiation.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- A mathematical model for predicting the spatiotemporal response of breast cancer cells treated with doxorubicin.Cancer biology & therapy · 2024Article
- Cancer cell sedimentation in 3D cultures reveals active migration regulated by self-generated gradients and adhesion sites.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Designing clinical trials for patients who are not average.iScience · 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
4 authors.
Funding
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
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.