ArticleScientific reports2024
Defining the optimal setting for transcriptomic analyses on blood samples for response prediction in immunotherapy-treated NSCLC patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrative transcriptomic and machine learning analysis identifies candidate biomarkers and immune features in diabetic ulcers.Molecular biology reports · 2026Article
- Precision immunotherapy for head and neck cancer: therapeutic combinations, biomarker strategies, and translational challenges.Molecular cancer · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Transcriptomic profiling of blood immune cells offers a promising alternative to invasive, sampling bias-prone tissue-based biomarker assays for predicting immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy response in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. However, the optimal analytical approach to identify systemic correlates of response still needs to be explored. We collected peripheral blood mononuclear cells and whole blood (WB) samples from 33 ICI-treated NSCLC patients before ICI treatment and at the first response evaluation. After bulk polyadenylated RNA-sequencing, we assessed differences in gene expression profiles between non-responders and responders using differential expression analysis, single sample gene set enrichment analysis (ssGSEA), and cell type deconvolution. We evaluated gene expression values, ssGSEA scores, and deconvolved cell type proportions to distinguish non-responders from responders via ROC curve (AUC) analysis, training a logistic regression classification model. Gene expression values and deconvolved proportions yielded the best results with WB samples after treatment (AUC = 0.87 and 0.85, respectively). Overall, ssGSEA scores showed superior classification performance across all sample types and timepoints (AUC > 0.7). In conclusion, transcriptomic analysis through ssGSEA demonstrated the best performance as a non-invasive biomarker for predicting clinical benefit in ICI-treated NSCLC patients, with gene expression and deconvolution on post-treatment WB samples also showing promising results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.