ArticleNeurosurgical review2024
Comment on, "Survival prediction of glioblastoma patients-are we there yet? A systematic review of prognostic modeling for glioblastoma and its clinical potential".
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2025-01-27Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Computer-Aided Content or Computer-Generated Content ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The article "Survival Prediction of Glioblastoma Patients-Are We There Yet? A Systematic Review of Prognostic Modeling for Glioblastoma and Its Clinical Potential" by Tewarie et al. (2024) critically examines the current landscape of prognostic models for glioblastoma, highlighting both advancements and challenges in their clinical application. Through a systematic review adhering to PRISMA guidelines, the authors synthesize findings from diverse studies, shedding light on the variability in model performance and the obstacles to clinical implementation. Despite these contributions, the review faces limitations due to the heterogeneity of the studies included, which complicates definitive conclusions. The authors emphasize the need for external validation and standardization, though further exploration of the persistence of these challenges and the biases in machine learning models is warranted. Future research should focus on standardizing protocols and integrating ethical considerations to enhance the clinical utility of these models, moving the field closer to practical application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39299968What 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.