Fig. 6
Assessment of prognostic performance and predictive power of the TAM signature-based model. a ROC curves of the prognostic model predicting 1/3/5-years survival in the TCGA glioma dataset. b Kaplan–Meier curves of overall survival in TCGA glioma dataset according to the high (n = 178) and low (n = 329) risk score calculated based on the prognostic model. The cut-off is selected using the point that maximizes the difference between the true positive rate (TPR) and the false positive rate (FPR). c Forest plot describing the associations between survival outcomes with risk scores from the prognostic model and IDH mutation. The p value was inferred by the univariate Cox regression model. d–f Violin plots representing the distribution of TAM-SPP1 (d), TAM-AIF1 (e) and TAM-CCL3 (f) between TCGA glioma patients with high (n = 178) or low (n = 329) risk scores. g–i Spearman correlation between risk scores and the signature score of the top five markers for each TAM cluster in the TCGA glioma dataset. j Prediction of potential clinical response to immunotherapy in TCGA glioma patients, comparing patients with high- versus low-risk score. k–m Analysis of TIDE (k), T cell dysfunction (l) and T cell exclusion (m) scores in TCGA glioma patients with high- and low- risk scores. n ROC curves of the prognostic model predicting 1/3/5-years survival in the CGGA glioma dataset. o Kaplan–Meier curves of overall survival in CGGA glioma dataset according to the high (n = 248) and low (n = 344) risk scores based on the prognostic model. The cut-off is selected using the point that maximizes the difference between the TPR and the FPR. p TIDE prediction of potential clinical immunotherapy response in CGGA glioma patients, comparing high- versus low-risk scores. q, r Analysis of TIDE (q) and T cell exclusion (r) scores in CGGA glioma patients with high and low risk scores. s, t Violin plots representing the TAM-SPP1 (s) and TAM-AIF1 (t) levels in CGGA glioma patients with high- and low-risk scores. Statistical significance was assessed by unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-test for (d–f, k–m, q–t), by two-sided χ2 test for (j, p), by two-tailed Spearman correlation between variables for (g–i) and by two-sided log-rank test for (b, o). *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ****p < 0.0001