ArticleFunctional & integrative genomics2026
A reproducible endothelial-state contrast with limited bulk prognostic robustness in hepatocellular carcinoma.
Article in Functional & integrative 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
Endothelial-cell (EC) states may influence the hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) microenvironment, but EC-derived bulk-tissue scores can also capture tumour purity and cellular admixture. We re-derived and stress-tested a previously proposed vascular immune accessibility score. GSE149614 was analysed with sample-aware doublet detection, ambient-RNA correction, pan-cell-type specificity testing, and patient-level pseudobulk contrasts. A deterministic algorithm selected two 15-gene modules. Independent single-cell validation used GSE151530, with all score genes excluded from unsupervised tumour endothelial-cell (TEC) clustering. Bulk sensitivity analyses used TCGA-LIHC, GSE14520, and ICGC LIRI-JP; TCGA models incorporated ABSOLUTE purity. Spatial analyses used two unique GSE245908 sections. Only 9/25 original immune-adhesive genes and 6/25 barrier genes passed EC-specificity thresholds. GSE151530 included 50,023 HCC cells from 25 patients and 32 specimens, including 2,299 quality-controlled TECs. At the patient level, both modules were EC enriched (median TEC-minus-non-TEC differences 1.438 and 3.222; paired Wilcoxon P = 2.21 × 10^-5 and 1.94 × 10^-5). The modules mapped onto 12 independently derived TEC clusters. The revised score correlated modestly with TCGA ABSOLUTE purity (rho=-0.137; P = 0.010). Clinical Cox models were non-significant in TCGA-LIHC, GSE14520, and ICGC LIRI-JP, and cohort directions were inconsistent. Spatial results replicated in only one of two sections. The revised score was not evaluable in the 24-sample NanoString immunotherapy cohort because only 3/30 genes were present. The reproducible result is an LSEC-like-to-angiogenic EC transcriptomic contrast. The data do not support direct immune-accessibility, directionally consistent prognostic, or immunotherapy-selection claims.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42474788What 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.