ReviewiScience2026
Inhibitory receptor profiles for joint prediction of benefit and toxicity in immune checkpoint blockade.
Review in iScience, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Immune checkpoint blockade has transformed cancer therapy, but durable benefit is limited to a subset of patients and can be accompanied by immune-related adverse events. This Review evaluates inhibitory receptor profiles as candidate biomarkers for predicting both antitumor benefit and immune toxicity. We examine how receptor abundance, co-expression, cellular lineage, clonality, spatial context, and treatment-induced dynamics shape interpretation across tissue imaging, cytometry, bulk transcriptomics, single-cell multi-omics, and spatial profiling, with particular attention to organ-specific toxicity and time-dependent analytical bias. Current evidence supports context-dependent associations, especially for multi-receptor T-cell states and early on-treatment changes, but not universal thresholds or stand-alone clinical use. Because benefit and toxicity share pathways yet arise from partly distinct biological determinants, they should remain separate model outputs. We propose a staged path from mechanistic discovery to a locked minimal assay, external validation, and prospective evaluation of clinical utility.
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.