ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2026
Comparative cross-methodological analysis of the IDH-wildtype glioblastoma tumor microenvironment.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeGlioblastoma, IDH-wildtype is a highly aggressive and often recurrent brain malignancy characterized by a profoundly immunosuppressive and heterogeneous tumor microenvironment. In this study, we aimed to systematically compare commonly used immune profiling methodologies.
methodsWe conducted a cross-platform comparison using matched primary and recurrent tumor samples analyzed by immunohistochemistry, multiplex immunofluorescence, AI-driven image analysis, DNA methylation profiling, and bulk RNA sequencing. A total of 72 samples from 36 patients were evaluated to assess cross-method concordance, cell-type resolution, and each platform’s ability to capture TME dynamics throughout disease progression.
resultsAcross modalities, monocyte/macrophage-lineage cells were the most consistently identified and quantifiable population. Image-based techniques, including immunohistochemistry, multiplex immunofluorescence, and AI-driven quantification, demonstrated strong concordance for B cell and macrophage detection, whereas T cell quantification showed greater inter-method variability, particularly in recurrent tumors. RNA sequencing-based deconvolution captured broader spectrum of immune and neoplastic states, including microglial enrichment, but aligned only moderately with protein-level measurements. DNA methylation-based approaches performed robustly for myeloid cell estimation but limited accuracy for lymphocyte populations.
conclusionThis study highlights the complementary strengths and limitations of current immune profiling modalities in GB. An integrative, method-aware framework facilitates more accurate immune cell quantification and deeper biological insights into TME evolution, ultimately informing the development of precision immunotherapeutic strategies for recurrent GB.
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.