The Metabolic Epicenter of Supratentorial Gliomas: A<sup>1</sup>H-MRSI Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Assessing the impact of glioma location on prognosis remains elusive. We approached the problem using multivoxel proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (1H-MRSI) to define a tumor "metabolic epicenter", and examined the relationship of metabolic epicenter location to survival and histopathological grade. METHODS: We studied 54 consecutive patients with a supratentorial glioma (astrocytoma or oligodendroglioma, WHO grades II-IV). The metabolic epicenter in each tumor was defined as the 1H-MRSI voxel containing maximum intra-tumoral choline on preoperative imaging. Tumor location was considered the X-Y-Z coordinate position, in a standardized stereotactic space, of the metabolic epicenter. Correlation between epicenter location and survival or grade was assessed. RESULTS: Metabolic epicenter location correlated significantly with patient survival for all tumors (r2 = 0.30, p = 0.0002) and astrocytomas alone (r2 = 0.32, p = 0.005). A predictive model based on both metabolic epicenter location and histopathological grade accounted for 70% of the variability in survival, substantially improving on histology alone to predict survival. Location also correlated significantly with grade (r2 = 0.25, p = 0.001): higher grade tumors had a metabolic epicenter closer to the midpoint of the brain. CONCLUSIONS: The concept of the metabolic epicenter eliminates several problems related to existing methods of classifying glioma location. The location of the metabolic epicenter is strongly correlated with overall survival and histopathological grade, suggesting that it reflects biological factors underlying glioma growth and malignant dedifferentiation. These findings may be clinically relevant to predicting patterns of local glioma recurrence, and in planning resective surgery or radiotherapy.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".