ArticleMedicine2026
Numerical investigation of the impact of neural stem cells on brain tumors.
Article in Medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Malignant brain tumors, including glioblastoma and medulloblastoma, remain highly treatment-resistant. Neural stem cells (NSCs) are being investigated as tumor-tropic therapeutic vectors, but the temporal interaction between tumor and NSC populations requires quantitative characterization before model-based treatment hypotheses can be interpreted reliably. This study aimed to develop and numerically evaluate a reproducible 2-population model of tumor-NSC dynamics and to quantify the influence of NSC persistence and NSC-mediated tumor killing on simulated tumor burden. A normalized system of 2 coupled nonlinear ordinary differential equations was used: dT/dt = rT(1 - T) - βTN and dN/dt = αN(1 - N) - γTN. The baseline simulation used r = 0.20000 day-1, α = 0.05000 day-1, β = 0.35000 day-1, γ = 0.30000 day-1, T0 = 0.50000, and N0 = 0.40000. Explicit Euler integration was performed with Δt = 0.01 day over 20 days. A descriptive nonlinear regression fit, Fourier spectral analysis, 1-parameter sensitivity analyses, and joint α-β sensitivity analysis were applied to the simulated trajectory. In the baseline simulation, tumor density decreased from 0.5000 to a minimum of 0.4772 at day 2.59 (4.57% below the initial value) and subsequently increased to T20 = 0.8273, while NSC density declined from 0.4000 to N20 = 0.0247. The descriptive regression reproduced the simulated tumor trajectory with R2 = 0.9973 and root mean square error = 0.00590. Increasing α from 0.05 to 0.10 day-1 reduced T20 by 12.6% relative to baseline, and increasing β from 0.35 to 0.50 day-1 reduced T20 by 19.9%. Jointly setting α = 0.10 and β = 0.50 day-1 yielded T20 = 0.4427, 46.5% below the baseline terminal tumor density. The Fourier spectrum was dominated by the zero and low-frequency components, with no distinct oscillatory peak over the 20-day window. The model indicates that NSC persistence and NSC-mediated tumor killing materially influence terminal tumor burden, but the baseline parameterization produces only transient early suppression followed by tumor regrowth as the NSC population declines. The results are population-level, model-based estimates rather than tumor-type-specific clinical efficacy measures. Tumour-specific calibration, spatial migration, immune interactions, and experimental validation are required before translational conclusions can be drawn.
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.