Biomarkers in tumors of the central nervous system – a review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Until recently, diagnostics of brain tumors were almost solely based on morphology and immunohistochemical stainings for relatively unspecific lineage markers. Although certain molecular markers have been known for longer than a decade (combined loss of chromosome 1p and 19q in oligodendrogliomas), molecular biomarkers were not included in the WHO scheme until 2016. Now, the classification of diffuse gliomas rests on an integration of morphology and molecular results. Also, for many other central nervous system tumor entities, specific diagnostic, prognostic and predictive biomarkers have been detected and continue to emerge. Previously, we considered brain tumors with similar histology to represent a single disease entity. We now realize that histologically identical tumors might show alterations in different molecular pathways, and often represent separate diseases with different natural history and response to treatment. Hence, knowledge about specific biomarkers is of great importance for individualized treatment and follow-up. In this paper we review the biomarkers that we currently use in the diagnostic work-up of brain tumors.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it