ArticlePhilosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences2025
Identifiability and model selection frameworks for models of high-grade glioma response to chemoradiation.
Article in Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Digital Twins in Neuro-Oncology: A Systematic Review of Current Implementations, Technical Strategies, and Clinical Applications.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2026Pooled it
- TumorTwin: a Python framework for patient-specific digital twins in oncology.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Investigating the Limits of Predictability of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Mathematical Models of Tumor Growth.Cancers · 2025Article
- Identifiability and model selection frameworks for models of high-grade glioma response to chemoradiation.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2025Article
- Preface to the theme issue 'Uncertainty quantification for healthcare and biological systems (Part 2)'.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We have developed a family of biology-based mathematical models of high-grade glioma (HGG), capturing the key features of tumour growth and response to chemoradiation. We now seek to quantify the accuracy of parameter estimation and determine, when given a virtual patient cohort, which model was used to generate the tumours. In this way, we systematically test both the parameter and model identifiability. Virtual patients are generated from unique growth parameters whose growth dynamics are determined by the model family. We then assessed the ability to recover model parameters and select the model used to generate the tumour. We then evaluated the accuracy of predictions using the selected model at four weeks post-chemoradiation. We observed median parameter errors from 0.04% to 72.96%. Our model selection framework selected the model that was used to generate the data in 82% of the cases. Finally, we predicted the growth of the virtual tumours using the selected model resulting in low error at the voxel-level (concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) ranged from 0.66 to 0.99) and global level (percentage error in total tumour cellularity ranged from -12.35% to 0.07%). These results demonstrate the reliability of our framework to identify the most appropriate model under noisy conditions expected in the clinical setting.This article is part of the theme issue 'Uncertainty quantification for healthcare and biological systems (Part 2)'.
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.