Diagnostic and prognostic value of preoperative combined GFAP, IGFBP‐2, and YKL‐40 plasma levels in patients with glioblastoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Circulating proteins released by tumor cells have recently been investigated as potential single surrogate biomarkers for glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). The aim of the current hypothesis-generating study was to evaluate the diagnostic and prognostic role of preoperative insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 2 (IGFBP-2), chitinase-3-like protein 1 (YKL-40), and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) plasma levels in patients with GBM, both as single markers and as a combined profile. METHODS: Plasma samples from 111 patients with GBM and a subset of 40 patients with nonglial brain tumors were obtained preoperatively. Plasma from 99 healthy controls was also analyzed. IGFBP-2, YKL-40, and GFAP levels were determined using enzyme-linked immunoadsorbent assay tests. Their association with histological and radiological variables was assessed. RESULTS: Circulating levels of all 3 proteins were found to be significantly higher in patients with GBM compared with healthy controls (P < .01). Only YKL-40 and GFAP were found to demonstrate significant differences between patients with GBM and nonglial brain tumors (P = .04). GFAP was undetectable (<0.02 ng/mL) in all patients without GBM. A receiver operating characteristic analysis accounting for a 2-step diagnostic procedure including the 3 biomarkers afforded an area under the curve of 0.77 for differentiating patients with GBM from those with nonglial brain tumors. There was a significant correlation between tumor volume and plasma IGFBP-2 level (Spearman Rho correlation coefficient, 0.22; P = .025) and GFAP (Spearman Rho correlation coefficient, 0.36; P < .001) among patients with GBM. Preoperative plasma IGFBP-2 levels were found to be independently associated with worse overall survival among patients with GBM (hazard ratio, 1.3; P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: A combined profile of preoperative IGFBP-2, GFAP, and YKL-40 plasma levels could serve as an additional diagnostic tool for patients with inoperable brain lesions suggestive of GBM. In addition, IGFBP-2 levels appear to constitute an independent prognostic factor in patients with GBM.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".