ArticlePLoS computational biology2024
Systems approach for congruence and selection of cancer models towards precision medicine.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Biomarker-guided responses in patient-derived organoids predict effective therapies in breast cancer.Cell reports. Medicine · 2026Trial
- Cell-intrinsic platinum response and associated genetic and gene expression signatures in ovarian cancer.Cancer gene therapy · 2025Article
- Precision preclinical modeling to advance cancer treatment.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025Review
- The Transformative Role of 3D Culture Models in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Research.Cancers · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cancer models are instrumental as a substitute for human studies and to expedite basic, translational, and clinical cancer research. For a given cancer type, a wide selection of models, such as cell lines, patient-derived xenografts, organoids and genetically modified murine models, are often available to researchers. However, how to quantify their congruence to human tumors and to select the most appropriate cancer model is a largely unsolved issue. Here, we present Congruence Analysis and Selection of CAncer Models (CASCAM), a statistical and machine learning framework for authenticating and selecting the most representative cancer models in a pathway-specific manner using transcriptomic data. CASCAM provides harmonization between human tumor and cancer model omics data, systematic congruence quantification, and pathway-based topological visualization to determine the most appropriate cancer model selection. The systems approach is presented using invasive lobular breast carcinoma (ILC) subtype and suggesting CAMA1 followed by UACC3133 as the most representative cell lines for ILC research. Two additional case studies for triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) and patient-derived xenograft/organoid (PDX/PDO) are further investigated. CASCAM is generalizable to any cancer subtype and will authenticate cancer models for faithful non-human preclinical research towards precision medicine.
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.