MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891211750 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noy139.025

OS3.6 Development and validation of a DNA methylome-based predictor of meningioma recurrence and meningioma recurrence score

2018· article· en· W2891211750 on OpenAlexaff
Farshad Nassiri, Yasin Mamatjan, Suganth Suppiah, Jetan H. Badhiwala, Sheila Mansouri, Shirin Karimi, P Harter, Peter Baumgarten, Michael Weller, Matthias Preusser, Christel Herold‐Mende, Felix Sahm, Andreas von Deimling, Gelareh Zadeh, Kenneth Aldape

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNomogramDNA methylationOncologyInternal medicineMeningiomaCohortMedicineProportional hazards modelMicroarrayBioinformaticsComputational biologyBiologyGeneSurgeryGeneticsGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The greatest clinical challenge faced in meningioma is the inability to predict recurrence for individual patients, limiting the ability to select patients who would benefit from adjuvant radiation therapy to prevent recurrence. In this multi-center cohort study, we utilized global epigenome DNA methylation profiles from human tumor samples to generate and validate a methylome-based predictor of recurrence-free survival (RFS) in individual patients to guide decision making regarding adjuvant treatment. Cox modeling of individual probes was used for feature selection in a training set (N=228 patients) which was then applied to two independent validation sets (N=54; N=140 patients). Gene-expression analysis was correlated to DNA methylation profiles using two published microarray datasets (GSE16581; GSE9438). Finally, penalized Cox modeling was used to generate a 5-year meningioma recurrence score based on a nomogram that integrated our validated methylome-based predictor with established clinical factors. The methlyome-based predictor was independently associated with RFS in each of the two validation sets, after adjusting for tumor grade and extent of resection (EOR; HR 4.0, 95%CI 1·4 - 11·5, P = 0·01 and HR 2·3, 95%CI 1·4 - 3.8, P = 0·002). Using a 5-year RFS metric, the methylome-based predictor performed favourably compared to a grade-based predictor in both validation cohorts (ΔAUC =15%; ΔAUC=12%). Functional annotation of the included probes implicated the homeobox gene family. A nomogram constructed using the validated methylome-predictor with WHO grade and EOR demonstrated greater predictive performance than a nomogram using clinical factors alone (ΔAUC = 7·7%) and resulted in two different risk groups with distinct recurrence patterns (P < 0·001). The methylome-based predictor and meningioma recurrence score developed and validated in this study provide important prognostic information not captured by established clinical factors. The meningioma recurrence score represent the first combined molecular and clinical prognostic tool that is individualized for patients with meningiomas, and hence an advance towards precision medicine in meningiomas

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207