ArticleBMC cancer2025
A data assimilation framework for predicting the spatiotemporal response of high-grade gliomas to chemoradiation.
Article in BMC cancer, 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.
- Towards a clinically practical computational platform for systematically adapting radiation therapy for glioma patients.Physics in medicine and biology · 2026Article
- Predicting head and neck cancer response to radiotherapy using mathematical modeling of MRI-based habitats.NPJ precision oncology · 2026Article
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
backgroundHigh-grade gliomas are highly invasive and respond variably to chemoradiation. Accurate, patient-specific predictions of tumor response could enhance treatment planning. We present a novel computational platform that assimilates MRI data to continually predict spatiotemporal tumor changes during chemoradiotherapy.
methodsTumor growth and response to chemoradiation was described using a two-species reaction-diffusion model of enhancing and non-enhancing regions of the tumor. Two evaluation scenarios were used to test the predictive accuracy of this model. In scenario 1, the model was calibrated on a patient-specific basis (n = 21) to weekly MRI data during the course of chemoradiotherapy. A data assimilation framework was used to update model parameters with each new imaging visit which were then used to update model predictions. In scenario 2, we evaluated the predictive accuracy of the model when fewer data points are available by calibrating the same model using only the first two imaging visits and then predicted tumor response at the remaining five weeks of treatment. We investigated three approaches to assign model parameters for scenario 2: (1) predictions using only parameters estimated by fitting the data obtained from an individual patient's first two imaging visits, (2) predictions made by averaging the patient-specific parameters with the cohort-derived parameters, and (3) predictions using only cohort-derived parameters.
resultsScenario 1 achieved a median [range] concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) between the predicted and measured total tumor cell counts of 0.91 [0.84, 0.95], and a median [range] percent error in tumor volume of -2.6% [-19.7, 8.0%], demonstrating strong agreement throughout the course of treatment. For scenario 2, the three approaches yielded CCCs of: (1) 0.65 [0.51, 0.88], (2) 0.74 [0.70, 0.91], (3) 0.76 [0.73, 0.92] with significant differences between the approach (1) that does not use the cohort parameters and the two approaches (2 and 3) that do.
conclusionsThe proposed data assimilation framework enhances the accuracy of tumor growth forecasts by integrating patient-specific and cohort-based data. These findings show a practical method for identifying more personalized treatment strategies in high-grade glioma patients.
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.