ArticleCancers2025
Investigating the Limits of Predictability of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Mathematical Models of Tumor Growth.
Article in Cancers, 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.
- TumorTwin: a Python framework for patient-specific digital twins in oncology.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesWe provide a framework for determining how far into the future the spatiotemporal dynamics of tumor growth can be accurately predicted using routinely available magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data. Our analysis is applied to a coupled set of reaction-diffusion equations describing the spatiotemporal development of tumor cellularity and vascularity, initialized and constrained with diffusion-weighted (DW) and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI data, respectively.
methodsMotivated by experimentally acquired murine glioma data, the rat brain serves as the computational domain within which we seed an in silico tumor. We generate a set of 13 virtual tumors defined by different combinations of model parameters. The first parameter combination was selected as it generated a tumor with a necrotic core during our simulated ten-day experiment. We then tested 12 additional parameter combinations to study a range of high and low tumor cell proliferation and diffusion values. Each tumor is grown for ten days via our model system to establish "ground truth" spatiotemporal tumor dynamics with an infinite signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). We then systematically reduce the quality of the imaging data by decreasing the SNR, downsampling the spatial resolution (SR), and decreasing the sampling frequency, our proxy for reduced temporal resolution (TR). With each decrement in image quality, we assess the accuracy of the calibration and subsequent prediction by comparing it to the corresponding ground truth data using the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) for both tumor and vasculature volume fractions, as well as the Dice similarity coefficient for tumor volume fraction.
resultsAll tumor CCC and Dice scores for each of the 13 virtual tumors are >0.9 regardless of the SNR/SR/TR combination. Vasculature CCC scores with any SR/TR combination are >0.9 provided the SNR ≥ 80 for all virtual tumors; for the special case of high-proliferating tumors (i.e., proliferation > 0.0263 day
conclusionsOur systematic evaluation demonstrates that reaction-diffusion models can maintain acceptable longitudinal prediction accuracy-especially for tumor predictions-despite limitations in the quality and quantity of experimental data.
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.