ArticlePloS one2025
Mechanistic investigation of glycolysis and pyroptosis in colon adenocarcinoma tissues, and prognostic analysis of patient clinical outcomes.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe exact mechanisms driving colorectal cancer (CRC) are yet to be fully elucidated. This study aims to confirm the reliability of a prognostic model for colon adenocarcinoma (COAD) by analyzing the varied expression levels of Glycolysis & Pyroptosis-Related Differentially Expressed Genes (G&PRDEGs) in COAD using bioinformatics tools.
methodsWe retrieved gene expression data and clinical details for COAD patients from the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database. These data were analyzed to categorize the samples into pyroptosis-positive and pyroptosis-negative groups based on their expression of G&PRDEGs. A prognostic model for COAD was then developed using LASSO Cox regression analysis, focusing on these differentially expressed genes (DEGs). Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted to assess the differences in survival between the two groups. Furthermore, we conducted multivariate Cox regression analyses to evaluate the influence of clinical parameters and model-derived risk scores. Analyses of pathway enrichment were performed using R software, alongside single-sample gene-set enrichment analysis (ssGSEA) to explore the role of immune cells and functions associated with G&PRDEGs.
resultsA predictive model was developed using 53 G&PRDEGs that were expressed differentially. An examination of survival rates revealed that the high-risk groups exhibited a noticeably diminished overall survival (OS) in comparison to the low-risk groups in the TCGA database (P < 0.001). An examination of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve indicated that the risk score effectively predicted outcomes at 1, 3, and 5 years, with a space beneath the curve greater than 0.7. The risk score significantly affected the survival of COAD sufferers in the TCGA database, on the basis of the multivariate Cox regression analysis. The high-risk groups had a hazard ratio (HR) of 3.988 (95% CI 2.865 ~ 5.551, P < 0.001) in contrast to the low-risk groups. Examinations of enrichment identified an increase in the expression of DEGs in the high-risk groups, in contrast to the low-risk cohort, on the basis of the TCGA database. SsGSEA revealed elevated levels of immune cell soakage in the high-risk groups in contrast to the low-risk groups.
conclusionThe COAD prognosis model, developed using G&PRDEGs, exhibits predictive capability for the prognosis of COAD sufferers and offers utility in prognostic analysis for COAD sufferers.
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.