ArticleBMC cancer2025
Survival risk stratification of 2021 WHO glioblastoma by MRI radiomics and biological exploration.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radiomics for risk stratification in brain metastases: potential in melanoma brain metastases.Clinical & experimental metastasis · 2026Article
- Deep learning-based cross-attention fusion of multimodal MRI for survival prediction and risk stratification in IDH-wildtype glioblastoma: a multicenter study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Longitudinal Cerebral Structural, Microstructural, and Functional Alterations After Brain Tumor Surgery for Early Detection of Recurrent Tumors.Biomedicines · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is variability in overall survival among 2021 World Health Organization isocitrate dehydrogenase wild type glioblastoma (IDH-wt GBM) patients. The aim of the study was to develop a combined model for stratifying survival risk in IDH-wt GBM and explore the biological foundation.
methodsA total of 369 IDH-wt GBM patients were retrospectively collected: 273 patients from three local hospitals (training set: n = 192, testing set: n = 81) and 96 patients from the TCIA database (validation set). Radiomics features from tumor and peritumoral edema in preoperative CE-T1WI and T2FLAIR were extracted. Univariate and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator Cox regression analyses selected significant radiomics features to construct radiomics model, while univariable and multivariable analyses identified clinical risk factors for the clinical model. High-risk and low-risk patients from radiomics and clinical model underwent subgroup analysis. The combined model was constructed using the Random Survival Forest model. Additionally, differentially expressed genes between combined high-risk and low-risk groups were identified, with enrichment analyses exploring their biological mechanisms.
resultsThe radiomics model categorizes patients into high-risk and low-risk groups with superior performance (C-index: 0.762/0.715/0.690 for training/testing/validation sets) compared to the clinical model (C-index: 0.700/0.656/0.643). The combined model demonstrates the highest value in survival risk stratification (C-index: training/testing/validation sets: 0.788/0.725/0.709). The activation of Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor-related pathways is closely associated with malignant progression and prognosis of IDH-wt GBM.
conclusionsThe radiomics model might be a new prognostic biomarker for IDH-wt GBM. The combined model shows an approximately 12.57% improvement of stratification ability over the clinical model. Additionally, the significant activation of GABA receptor-related pathways may be a biological feature of combined high-risk IDH-wt GBM.
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.