ArticleNeuro-oncology advances
A machine learning-assisted systematic review of preclinical glioma modeling: Is practice changing with the times?
Article in Neuro-oncology advances. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite improvements in our understanding of glioblastoma pathophysiology, there have been no major improvements in treatment in recent years. Animal models are a vital tool for investigating cancer biology and its treatment, but have known limitations. There have been advances in glioblastoma modeling techniques in this century although it is unclear to what extent they have been adopted. Methods: We searched Pubmed and EMBASE using terms designed to identify all publications reporting an animal glioma experiment, using a machine learning algorithm to assist with screening. We reviewed the full text of a sample of 1000 articles and then used the findings to inform a screen of all included abstracts to appraise the modeling applications across the entire dataset. Results: The search identified 26 201 publications of which 13 783 were included at screening. The automated screening had high sensitivity but limited specificity. We observed a dominance of traditional cell line paradigms and the emergence of advanced tumor model systems eclipsed by a large increase in the volume of cell line experiments. Few studies used more than 1 model in vivo and most publications did not verify critical genetic features. Conclusions: Advanced models have clear advantages in terms of tumor and disease recapitulation and have largely not replaced traditional cell lines which have a number of critical deficiencies that limit their viability in modern animal research. The judicious use of advanced models or more relevant cell lines might improve the translational relevance of future animal glioblastoma experimentation.
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.