ArticleNPJ precision oncology2025
Predicting atezolizumab response in metastatic urothelial carcinoma patients using machine learning on integrated tumour gene expression and clinical data.
Article in NPJ precision oncology, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Atezolizumab is a treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC), yet only 23% of mUC patients benefit from it. Worse yet, accurately predicting such responders remains challenging, despite existing biomarkers. Here we employed eight machine learning (ML) algorithms to predict mUC patient response to atezolizumab using tumours' gene expression profiling and clinical data from two independent cohorts. The CART-OMC model developed on the discovery dataset achieved the highest performance, with a validation set Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) of 0.437, using the expressions of just 29 ML-selected genes, including CXCL9 and IFNG. Univariate biomarkers like TMB, TNB, and PD-L1 were less predictive with MCCs of 0, 0.316, and 0, respectively. Upon merging these datasets, the best-performing model (LGBM-OMC; MCC of 0.252) also outperformed top modelling approaches such as EaSIeR (MCC ~ 0) and JADBio (MCC of 0.179). We make these promising ML models freely available to predict atezolizumab response in other mUC patients.
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.