Medulloblastoma Comprises Four Distinct Molecular Variants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Recent genomic approaches have suggested the existence of multiple distinct subtypes of medulloblastoma. We studied a large cohort of medulloblastomas to determine how many subgroups of the disease exist, how they differ, and the extent of overlap between subgroups. METHODS: We determined gene expression profiles and DNA copy number aberrations for 103 primary medulloblastomas. Bioinformatic tools were used for class discovery of medulloblastoma subgroups based on the most informative genes in the data set. Immunohistochemistry for subgroup-specific signature genes was used to determine subgroup affiliation for 294 nonoverlapping medulloblastomas on two independent tissue microarrays. RESULTS: Multiple unsupervised analyses of transcriptional profiles identified the following four distinct, nonoverlapping molecular variants: WNT, SHH, group C, and group D. Supervised analysis of these four subgroups revealed significant subgroup-specific demographics, histology, metastatic status, and DNA copy number aberrations. Immunohistochemistry for DKK1 (WNT), SFRP1 (SHH), NPR3 (group C), and KCNA1 (group D) could reliably and uniquely classify formalin-fixed medulloblastomas in approximately 98% of patients. Group C patients (NPR3-positive tumors) exhibited a significantly diminished progression-free and overall survival irrespective of their metastatic status. CONCLUSION: Our integrative genomics approach to a large cohort of medulloblastomas has identified four disparate subgroups with distinct demographics, clinical presentation, transcriptional profiles, genetic abnormalities, and clinical outcome. Medulloblastomas can be reliably assigned to subgroups through immunohistochemistry, thereby making medulloblastoma subclassification widely available. Future research on medulloblastoma and the development of clinical trials should take into consideration these four distinct types of medulloblastoma.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".