ArticleBiomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology2026
Dynamic image-informed selection of biomechanical tumor growth models.
Article in Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Glioblastoma progression is strongly influenced by evolving mechanical interactions between the tumor and surrounding brain tissue. However, the extent to which finite-deformation mechanics and constitutive assumptions improve subject-specific prediction as tumor burden evolves remains unclear. We introduce a sequential Bayesian inference and dynamic model selection framework that assimilates longitudinal murine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data to calibrate spatially varying tumor diffusivity, proliferation rate, and tissue stiffness in biomechanical tumor growth models. Competing formulations were compared at each imaging time, including reaction-diffusion without mechanics and reaction-diffusion coupled to linear elasticity or hyperelastic mechanics, using posterior model plausibility to adapt model choice for individualized one-scan-ahead prediction as new MRI scans are acquired. Across the studied animals, mechanically coupled models were consistently more plausible than the uncoupled reaction-diffusion model, and the evolution of model plausibility indicated an increasing role of mass effect and stress-mediated feedback of tumor growth during progression. While linear and hyperelastic coupled tumor growth models often produced similar tumor morphology, they yield distinct stress, deformation, and inferred stiffness fields, with the hyperelastic formulation often receiving higher posterior plausibility at later imaging times. These results indicate that, within the present longitudinal murine dataset, mechanical coupling is favored for image-informed glioma growth prediction and that constitutive assumptions should be evaluated sequentially for each subject rather than fixed a priori.
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.