ArticleCell reports methods2025
Comprehensive assessment of computational methods for cancer immunoediting.
Article in Cell reports methods, 2025. 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.
- Neoantigen-driven cancer vaccines in personalized oncology: progress, obstacles, and translational prospects.Molecular biology reports · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cancer immunoediting reflects the role of the immune system in eliminating tumor cells and shaping tumor immunogenicity, which leaves marks in the genome. In this study, we systematically evaluate four methods for quantifying immunoediting. In colorectal cancer samples from The Cancer Genome Atlas, we found that these methods identified 78.41%, 46.17%, 36.61%, and 4.92% of immunoedited samples, respectively, covering 92.90% of all colorectal cancer samples. Comparison of 10 patient-derived xenografts (PDXs) with their original tumors showed that different methods identified reduced immune selection in PDXs ranging from 44.44% to 60.0%. The proportion of such PDX-tumor pairs increases to 77.78% when considering the union of results from multiple methods, indicating the complementarity of these methods. We find that observed-to-expected ratios highly rely on neoantigen selection criteria and reference datasets. In contrast, HLA-binding mutation ratio, immune dN/dS, and enrichment score of cancer cell fraction were less affected by these factors. Our findings suggest integration of multiple methods may benefit future immunoediting analyses.
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.