MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099920119 · doi:10.1200/jco.2013.50.9539

Cytogenetic Prognostication Within Medulloblastoma Subgroups

2014· article· en· W2099920119 on OpenAlexafffund
David Shih, Paul A. Northcott, Marc Remke, Andrey Korshunov, Vijay Ramaswamy, Marcel Kool, Betty Luu, Yuan Yao, Xin Wang, Adrian M. Dubuc, Livia Garzia, John Peacock, Stephen C. Mack, Xiaochong Wu, Adi Rolider, A. Sorana Morrissy, Florence M.G. Cavalli, David Jones, Karel Zitterbart, Cláudia C. Faria, Ulrich Schüller, Leoš Křen, Toshihiro Kumabe, Teiji Tominaga, Young Seob Shin, Miklós Garami, Péter Hauser, Jennifer A. Chan, Shenandoah Robinson, László Bognár, Álmos Klekner, Ali G. Saad, Linda M. Liau, Steffen Albrecht, Adam M. Fontebasso, Giuseppe Cinalli, Pasqualino De Antonellis, Massimo Zollo, Michael K. Cooper, Reid C. Thompson, Simon Bailey, Janet C. Lindsey, Concezio Di Rocco, Luca Massimi, Erna Michiels, Stephen W. Scherer, Joanna J. Phillips, Nalin Gupta, Xing Fan, Karin M. Muraszko, Rajeev Vibhakar, Charles G. Eberhart, Maryam Fouladi, Bolesław Lach, Shin Jung, Robert J. Wechsler‐Reya, Michelle Fèvre‐Montange, Anne Jouvet, Nada Jabado, Ian F. Pollack, William A. Weiss, Ji-Yeoun Lee, Byung-Kyu Cho, Seung‐Ki Kim, Kyu‐Chang Wang, Joshua B. Rubin, Carmen de Torres, Cinzia Lavarino, Jaume Mora, Yoon-Jae Cho, Uri Tabori, James M. Olson, Amar Gajjar, Roger J. Packer, Stefan Rutkowski, Scott L. Pomeroy, Pim J. French, Nanne K. Kloosterhof, Johan M. Kros, Erwin G. Van Meir, Steven C. Clifford, Franck Bourdeaut, Olivier Delattre, François Doz, Cynthia Hawkins, David Malkin, Wiesława Grajkowska, Marta Perek‐Polnik, Éric Bouffet, James T. Rutka, Stefan M. Pfister, Michael D. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of CalgaryMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Cancer InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchBrain Tumour CharityCancer Research UK
KeywordsMedulloblastomaMedicineOncologyInternal medicineContext (archaeology)Fluorescence in situ hybridizationProportional hazards modelBiomarkerBioinformaticsPathologyBiologyChromosomeGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Medulloblastoma comprises four distinct molecular subgroups: WNT, SHH, Group 3, and Group 4. Current medulloblastoma protocols stratify patients based on clinical features: patient age, metastatic stage, extent of resection, and histologic variant. Stark prognostic and genetic differences among the four subgroups suggest that subgroup-specific molecular biomarkers could improve patient prognostication. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Molecular biomarkers were identified from a discovery set of 673 medulloblastomas from 43 cities around the world. Combined risk stratification models were designed based on clinical and cytogenetic biomarkers identified by multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses. Identified biomarkers were tested using fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) on a nonoverlapping medulloblastoma tissue microarray (n = 453), with subsequent validation of the risk stratification models. RESULTS: Subgroup information improves the predictive accuracy of a multivariable survival model compared with clinical biomarkers alone. Most previously published cytogenetic biomarkers are only prognostic within a single medulloblastoma subgroup. Profiling six FISH biomarkers (GLI2, MYC, chromosome 11 [chr11], chr14, 17p, and 17q) on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues, we can reliably and reproducibly identify very low-risk and very high-risk patients within SHH, Group 3, and Group 4 medulloblastomas. CONCLUSION: Combining subgroup and cytogenetic biomarkers with established clinical biomarkers substantially improves patient prognostication, even in the context of heterogeneous clinical therapies. The prognostic significance of most molecular biomarkers is restricted to a specific subgroup. We have identified a small panel of cytogenetic biomarkers that reliably identifies very high-risk and very low-risk groups of patients, making it an excellent tool for selecting patients for therapy intensification and therapy de-escalation in future clinical trials.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.093
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations313
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207