IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0264740.html

Analytic approaches to clinical validation of results from preclinical models of glioblastoma: A systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Beth Fitt
  • Grace Loy
  • Edward Christopher
  • Paul M Brennan
  • Michael Tin Chung Poon

Abstract

Introduction: Analytic approaches to clinical validation of results from preclinical models are important in assessment of their relevance to human disease. This systematic review examined consistency in reporting of glioblastoma cohorts from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) or Chinese Glioma Genome Atlas (CGGA) and assessed whether studies included patient characteristics in their survival analyses. Methods: We searched Embase and Medline on 02Feb21 for studies using preclinical models of glioblastoma published after Jan2008 that used data from TCGA or CGGA to validate the association between at least one molecular marker and overall survival in adult patients with glioblastoma. Main data items included cohort characteristics, statistical significance of the survival analysis, and model covariates. Results: There were 58 eligible studies from 1,751 non-duplicate records investigating 126 individual molecular markers. In 14 studies published between 2017 and 2020 using TCGA RNA microarray data that should have the same cohort, the median number of patients was 464.5 (interquartile range 220.5–525). Of the 15 molecular markers that underwent more than one univariable or multivariable survival analyses, five had discrepancies between studies. Covariates used in the 17 studies that used multivariable survival analyses were age (76.5%), pre-operative functional status (35.3%), sex (29.4%) MGMT promoter methylation (29.4%), radiotherapy (23.5%), chemotherapy (17.6%), IDH mutation (17.6%) and extent of resection (5.9%). Conclusion: Preclinical glioblastoma studies that used TCGA for validation did not provide sufficient information about their cohort selection and there were inconsistent results. Transparency in reporting and the use of analytic approaches that adjust for clinical variables can improve the reproducibility between studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Beth Fitt & Grace Loy & Edward Christopher & Paul M Brennan & Michael Tin Chung Poon, 2022. "Analytic approaches to clinical validation of results from preclinical models of glioblastoma: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(3), pages 1-12, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0264740
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264740
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0264740
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0264740&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0264740?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Olavo B. Amaral & Kleber Neves, 2021. "Reproducibility: expect less of the scientific paper," Nature, Nature, vol. 597(7876), pages 329-331, September.
    2. C. Glenn Begley & Lee M. Ellis, 2012. "Raise standards for preclinical cancer research," Nature, Nature, vol. 483(7391), pages 531-533, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hussinger, Katrin & Pellens, Maikel, 2019. "Guilt by association: How scientific misconduct harms prior collaborators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 516-530.
    2. Yan Li & Xiang Zhou & Rui Chen & Xianyang Zhang & Hongyuan Cao, 2024. "STAREG: Statistical replicability analysis of high throughput experiments with applications to spatial transcriptomic studies," PLOS Genetics, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(10), pages 1-19, October.
    3. Nathalie Percie du Sert & Viki Hurst & Amrita Ahluwalia & Sabina Alam & Marc T Avey & Monya Baker & William J Browne & Alejandra Clark & Innes C Cuthill & Ulrich Dirnagl & Michael Emerson & Paul Garne, 2020. "The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(7), pages 1-12, July.
    4. Felix Holzmeister & Magnus Johannesson & Colin F. Camerer & Yiling Chen & Teck-Hua Ho & Suzanne Hoogeveen & Juergen Huber & Noriko Imai & Taisuke Imai & Lawrence Jin & Michael Kirchler & Alexander Ly , 2025. "Examining the replicability of online experiments selected by a decision market," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 9(2), pages 316-330, February.
    5. Marlo M Vernon & E Andrew Balas & Shaher Momani, 2018. "Are university rankings useful to improve research? A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-15, March.
    6. Malika Ihle & Isabel S. Winney & Anna Krystalli & Michael Croucher, 2017. "Striving for transparent and credible research: practical guidelines for behavioral ecologists," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 28(2), pages 348-354.
    7. Baltussen, Guido & Swinkels, Laurens & Van Vliet, Pim, 2021. "Global factor premiums," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(3), pages 1128-1154.
    8. Bernhard Voelkl & Lucile Vogt & Emily S Sena & Hanno Würbel, 2018. "Reproducibility of preclinical animal research improves with heterogeneity of study samples," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-13, February.
    9. Fecher, Benedikt & Fräßdorf, Mathis & Hebing, Marcel & Wagner, Gert G., 2017. "Replikationen, Reputation und gute wissenschaftliche Praxis," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 68(2-3), pages 154-158.
    10. Ádám Kun, 2018. "Publish and Who Should Perish: You or Science?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-16, April.
    11. Andrea Saltelli & Monica Fiore, 2020. "From sociology of quantification to ethics of quantification," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-8, December.
    12. Schweinsberg, Martin & Feldman, Michael & Staub, Nicola & van den Akker, Olmo R. & van Aert, Robbie C.M. & van Assen, Marcel A.L.M. & Liu, Yang & Althoff, Tim & Heer, Jeffrey & Kale, Alex & Mohamed, Z, 2021. "Same data, different conclusions: Radical dispersion in empirical results when independent analysts operationalize and test the same hypothesis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 228-249.
    13. Susanne Wieschowski & Diego S Silva & Daniel Strech, 2016. "Animal Study Registries: Results from a Stakeholder Analysis on Potential Strengths, Weaknesses, Facilitators, and Barriers," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-12, November.
    14. van Aert, Robbie Cornelis Maria, 2018. "Dissertation R.C.M. van Aert," MetaArXiv eqhjd, Center for Open Science.
    15. Francisco Rowe & Gunther Maier & Daniel Arribas-Bel & Sergio Rey, 2020. "The Potential of Notebooks for Scientific Publication, Reproducibility and Dissemination," REGION, European Regional Science Association, vol. 7, pages 1-5.
    16. Christoph Semken & David Rossell, 2022. "Specification analysis for technology use and teenager well‐being: Statistical validity and a Bayesian proposal," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 71(5), pages 1330-1355, November.
    17. Wenhao Liu & Xiaoqian Shi & Junwei Zheng & Ren Li, 2024. "Characteristics of the knowledge graph of scientific and technological innovation in Gansu Province," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 10827-10843, April.
    18. Yu Zhang & Bingwen Yang & Ying Yu & Xia Wang & Chunyan Niu & Yongzhuo Zhang & Yang Liu & Jingshu Li & Caihang Zhang & Jiayi Yang & Jiayu Tian & Zheng Liu & Zhiyu Tang & Yunhua Gao & Yuanting Zheng & Y, 2026. "A metrological foundation for absolute transcriptomics using International System of Units-anchored calibrators," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, December.
    19. Vuong, Quan-Hoang, 2017. "Open data, open review and open dialogue in making social sciences plausible," OSF Preprints du8tj, Center for Open Science.
    20. Oliver Braganza, 2018. "Proxyeconomics, the inevitable corruption of proxy-based competition," Papers 1803.00345, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2019.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0264740. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.