Spatial computational modelling illuminates the role of the tumour microenvironment for treating glioblastoma with immunotherapies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glioblastoma is the most common and deadliest brain tumour in adults, with a median survival of 15 months under the current standard of care. Immunotherapies like immune checkpoint inhibitors and oncolytic viruses have been extensively studied to improve this endpoint. However, most thus far have failed. To improve the efficacy of immunotherapies to treat glioblastoma, new single-cell imaging modalities like imaging mass cytometry can be leveraged and integrated with computational models. This enables a better understanding of the tumour microenvironment and its role in treatment success or failure in this hard-to-treat tumour. Here, we implemented an agent-based model that allows for spatial predictions of combination chemotherapy, oncolytic virus, and immune checkpoint inhibitors against glioblastoma. We initialised our model with patient imaging mass cytometry data to predict patient-specific responses and found that oncolytic viruses drive combination treatment responses determined by intratumoral cell density. We found that tumours with higher tumour cell density responded better to treatment. When fixing the number of cancer cells, treatment efficacy was shown to be a function of CD4 + T cell and, to a lesser extent, of macrophage counts. Critically, our simulations show that care must be put into the integration of spatial data and agent-based models to effectively capture intratumoral dynamics. Together, this study emphasizes the use of predictive spatial modelling to better understand cancer immunotherapy treatment dynamics, while highlighting key factors to consider during model design and implementation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".