Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39438642›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Prognosis prediction via histological evaluation of cellular heterogeneity in glioblastoma.

Mari Kirishima, Seiya Yokoyama, Toshiaki Akahane, Nayuta Higa, Hiroyuki Uchida, Hajime Yonezawa, Kei Matsuo, Junkoh Yamamoto, Koji Yoshimoto, Ryosuke Hanaya and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Crosslink Between Neuroinflammation and Oxidative/Nitrosative Status in the Glioblastoma Tumor Microenvironment: Prognostic and Theranostic Impact.Journal of neuroimmune pharmacology : the official journal of the Society on NeuroImmune Pharmacology · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Neurooncology: 2025 update.Free neuropathology · 2025
    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

11 authors.

Mari Kirishima *Department of Pathology, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, 8-35-1 Sakuragaoka, Kagoshima, 890-8544, Japan.
Seiya Yokoyama *Department of Pathology, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, 8-35-1 Sakuragaoka, Kagoshima, 890-8544, Japan.
Toshiaki AkahaneDepartment of Pathology, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, 8-35-1 Sakuragaoka, Kagoshima, 890-8544, Japan.
Nayuta HigaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, 8-35-1 Sakuragaoka, Kagoshima, 890-8544, Japan.
Hiroyuki UchidaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, 8-35-1 Sakuragaoka, Kagoshima, 890-8544, Japan.
Hajime YonezawaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, 8-35-1 Sakuragaoka, Kagoshima, 890-8544, Japan.
Kei MatsuoDepartment of Pathology, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, 8-35-1 Sakuragaoka, Kagoshima, 890-8544, Japan.
Junkoh YamamotoDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Yahatanishi-Ku, Kitakyushu, 807-8555, Japan.
Koji YoshimotoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-Ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan.
Ryosuke HanayaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, 8-35-1 Sakuragaoka, Kagoshima, 890-8544, Japan. hanaya@m2.kufm.kagoshima-u.ac.jp.
Akihide TanimotoDepartment of Pathology, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, 8-35-1 Sakuragaoka, Kagoshima, 890-8544, Japan. akit09@m3.kufm.kagoshima-u.ac.jp.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Glioblastomas (GBMs) are the most aggressive types of central nervous system tumors. Although certain genomic alterations have been identified as prognostic biomarkers of GBMs, the histomorphological features that predict their prognosis remain elusive. In this study, following an integrative diagnosis of 227 GBMs based on the 2021 World Health Organization classification system, the cases were histologically fractionated by cellular variations and abundance to evaluate the relationship between cellular heterogeneity and prognosis in combination with O-6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase gene promoter methylation (mMGMTp) status. GBMs comprised four major cell types: astrocytic, pleomorphic, gemistocytic, and rhabdoid cells. t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding analysis using the histological abundance of heterogeneous cell types identified two distinct groups with significantly different prognoses. In individual cell component analysis, the abundance of gemistocytes showed a significantly favorable prognosis but confounding to mMGMTp status. Conversely, the abundance of epithelioid cells was correlated with the unfavorable prognosis. Linear model analysis showed the favorable prognostic utility of quantifying gemistocytic and epithelioid cells, independent of mMGMTp. The evaluation of GBM cell histomorphological heterogeneity is more effective for prognosis prediction in combination with mMGMTp analysis, indicating that histomorphological analysis is a practical and useful prognostication tool in an integrative diagnosis of GBMs.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsDNA MethylationGlioblastomaAdultAgedBiomarkers, TumorFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisPromoter Regions, GeneticBiomarkers, TumorCell heterogeneityGemistocyteGlioblastomaMethylation of MGMT promoterPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID39438642
PMCPMC11496527

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.