ReviewJournal of neuro-oncology2026
Big data in U.S. neuro-oncology: trends and translational priorities.
Review in Journal of neuro-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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeNeuro-oncology generates complex clinical, imaging, and molecular data, yet datasets remain relatively small and fragmented across modalities and institutions. While "big data" is traditionally defined by large sample size, neuro-oncology datasets are often characterized instead by high dimensionality. This study aims to provide an overview of the landscape of major U.S. neuro-oncology data resources and evaluate how these datasets are used in contemporary research.
methodsA selection of neuro-oncology datasets was evaluated, including population registries, clinical data networks, federal and consortium research cohorts, institutional datasets, specialized resources, and artificial intelligence benchmarking resources. Analytical use was assessed through a large language model-assisted review of PubMed-indexed studies published over the past ten years referencing these datasets. Titles and abstracts were screened using a predefined classification schema, and structured data extraction identified study characteristics, analytical tasks, outcomes, modalities, validation strategies, and longitudinal modeling approaches.
resultsOf 11,651 screened publications, 3,608 met inclusion criteria. Analytical use was concentrated in a small number of datasets, particularly TCGA (~ 65%), SEER (~ 14%), and BraTS (~ 13%). Most studies modeled survival or tumor characteristics, whereas fewer than 1% examined functional or quality-of-life outcomes. Approximately 90% relied on a single dataset, and external validation and longitudinal modeling were rare.
conclusionBig data in neuro-oncology is characterized by rich diversity. Expanding multimodal data capture, improving coverage of underrepresented populations and tumor types, strengthening longitudinal data collection, and enabling cross-dataset integration will be essential for translating high-dimensional datasets into clinically actionable insights.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42611103What 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.