ArticleScientific reports2025
Predicting the response of triple negative breast cancer to neoadjuvant systemic therapy via biology-based modeling and habitat analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite being the standard-of-care treatment, neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) attains a complete response only in approximately half of the patients with triple negative breast cancer. Thus, methods to predict and optimize patient response to NAT are needed. Previously, we employed patient-specific MRI data to calibrate a biology-based mathematical model that describes cell movement, proliferation, and death due to drug at the tumor level and cell proliferation at an image voxel level. We now extend our approach by using MRI data to group voxels into "habitats" whereby tumor cells of a habitat share the same proliferation. With this approach, we now calibrate habitat-informed proliferation rates for each habitat rather than local proliferation rates. When comparing error in tumor cell number and volume at the time of calibration, the local calibration has significantly (p < 0.05) lower error than the habitat-informed calibration. However, the habitat-informed predictions of a future timepoint have significantly lower error than the local predictions. Compared to the local calibration, the habitat-informed calibration also requires fewer parameters, reducing the calibration time by a factor of 17. These results suggest that a habitat-informed calibration can provide both accurate and efficient predictions of breast cancer response to NAT.
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.