ArticleDiscover oncology2025
Integrating machine learning with mendelian randomization for unveiling causal gene networks in glioblastoma multiforme.
Article in Discover oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of an immune-related gene signature for the prognostic and immune landscape prediction in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma by integrated analysis of machine learning and Mendelian randomization.Translational cancer research · 2025Article
- Machine learning and deep learning in glioblastoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment.Discover oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGlioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is a highly aggressive brain cancer with poor prognosis and limited treatment options. Despite advances in understanding its molecular mechanisms, effective therapeutic strategies remain elusive due to the tumor's genetic complexity and heterogeneity.
methodsThis study employed a comprehensive analysis approach integrating 113 machine learning algorithms with Mendelian Randomization (MR) analysis to investigate the molecular underpinnings of GBM. Five publicly available gene expression datasets were analyzed to identify differentially expressed genes (DEGs) associated with GBM. Weighted Gene Co-expression Network Analysis (WGCNA) was used to identify GBM-related gene modules. Further, gene set enrichment and variation analyses were conducted to explore the biological pathways involved. The machine learning models were evaluated using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves and confusion matrices to assess their predictive accuracy, with the best-performing model validated across external datasets. MR analysis was performed to establish causal relationships between genetically predicted gene expression levels and GBM outcomes.
resultsThe study identified 286 DEGs between GBM and adjacent normal tissues across five datasets. WGCNA highlighted the yellow module as the most relevant to GBM, containing key genes such as KLHL3, FOXO4, and MAP1A. Of the 113 machine learning models tested, Ridge regression achieved the highest area under the curve (AUC) of 0.92, demonstrating robust predictive accuracy. Validation using external datasets confirmed the model's reliability, with a classification accuracy of 89.5% in the training set and 85.3% in the validation sets. MR analysis provided strong evidence of a causal relationship between the expression levels of the identified genes and GBM risk.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates the power of combining machine learning and Mendelian Randomization to uncover novel genetic markers for GBM. The identified genes offer promising potential as biomarkers for GBM diagnosis and therapy, providing new avenues for personalized treatment strategies.
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.