ArticleBMC medical genomics2026
Improved prognostic survival models for pediatric medulloblastoma using high dimensional gene expression data.
Article in BMC medical genomics, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genetic, epigenetic, and transcriptomic analyses have stratified medulloblastoma (MB) into four canonical subgroups of Wingless Type (WNT), Sonic Hedgehog (SHH), and Group 3 and Group 4, with distinct patient profiles and prognoses. Recent classification strategies have also considered combining Group 3 and Group 4 tumors into a Non-WNT/Non-SHH subgroup to account for biological overlap and heterogeneity. Using high-dimensional gene expression data from 487 pediatric and young adult patients and over twenty-one thousand transcripts, this study explores which genes can improve prognostic accuracy for survival while accounting for molecular stratification, histological subtype, key oncogenic drivers (MYC and MYCN amplification), and established clinical covariates, including age group (< 3 vs. 3-21 years) and metastatic status. We then develop a multi-stage framework for identifying prognostic genes and evaluating modern survival modeling strategies. In the first stage, gene screening was performed using Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted Cox regression across false discovery rate (FDR) thresholds from 1% to 6%, with the number of retained genes increasing from 15 at 1% to 146 at 6% FDR. In the second stage, multiple survival models were evaluated, including LASSO, Elastic Net, Ridge regression, SCAD, MCP, PCA-Cox, and Random Survival Forests, using ten-fold cross-validation with the Integrated Brier Score as the primary calibration metric and the concordance index as a secondary discrimination measure. Although Ridge regression achieved the lowest prediction error at higher FDR thresholds, it did not perform variable selection and retained large gene sets, limiting interpretability. In contrast, the 6% FDR Elastic Net model provided an optimal balance between predictive accuracy and model sparsity while reducing the gene set from 146 to 49 genes, yielding an interpretable final multivariable model. Gene-level effects from the final Elastic Net-penalized Cox model revealed a clear prognostic gradient. Genes associated with poorer survival included FKBP4, CSNK2A2, GPC4, GATA3, NPY, LYPD1, CLCA4, and BNC2, which have been implicated in tumor progression, signaling pathways, and immune-related processes, whereas genes associated with improved survival included ZNF774, COX10, FBLIM1, and UNC13C, reflecting roles in cellular regulation and protective biological processes. These findings demonstrate that combining FDR-based screening with Elastic Net-penalized Cox modeling yields a robust, parsimonious, and biologically meaningful prognostic framework for medulloblastoma, achieving strong predictive performance while maintaining interpretability in high-dimensional genomic settings.
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.