ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2026
Advances in computational biology approaches for digital modeling of tumor microenvironment.
Review in Briefings in bioinformatics, 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
Tumor progression arises from tightly coupled cellular, vascular, metabolic, immune, and biomechanical processes within the tumor microenvironment (TME), forming a heterogeneous multiscale system that cannot be fully characterized through experimental observation alone. Computational modeling provides a quantitative framework for integrating these mechanisms, but the diversity of available methods complicates model selection, parameterization, validation, and clinical translation. This review presents a problem-driven synthesis of computational approaches for TME modeling. Continuous, discrete, and discrete-continuous hybrid paradigms are compared in terms of biological resolution, data requirements, interpretability, and computational cost, and are linked to five mechanistic domains: tumor-cell dynamics, vascular transport, extracellular matrix and mechanics, metabolism and hypoxia, and immune interactions. Model credibility is examined through parameter identifiability, uncertainty quantification, numerical validity, biological fidelity, and clinical relevance, with emphasis on interpreting performance according to intended use and validation context. Machine learning is analyzed by function within mechanistic-ML integration: surrogate models accelerate forward simulation, inverse methods estimate latent parameters and states, patient-specific workflows combine multimodal clinical data with mechanistic models, and physics-informed neural networks embed governing equations into learning. We further discuss longitudinal personalization, physics-aware multiscale integration, clinically deployable digital twins, external generalization, and synthetic-data-to-clinical transfer. A translation-readiness pathway is proposed from mechanistic hypothesis generation to adaptive digital-twin decision support. Credible TME modeling should prioritize the minimum sufficient model, explicit intended use, transparent uncertainty, and evidence matched to the biological or clinical question.
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.