MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944076627 · doi:10.1007/s00401-019-02020-0

Second-generation molecular subgrouping of medulloblastoma: an international meta-analysis of Group 3 and Group 4 subtypes

2019· review· en· W2944076627 on OpenAlexaff
Tanvi Sharma, Ed C. Schwalbe, Daniel Williamson, Martin Sill, Volker Hovestadt, Martin Mynarek, Stefan Rutkowski, Giles Robinson, Amar Gajjar, Florence M.G. Cavalli, Vijay Ramaswamy, Michael D. Taylor, Janet C. Lindsey, Rebecca M. Hill, Natalie Jäger, Andrey Korshunov, Debbie Hicks, Simon Bailey, Marcel Kool, Lukas Chávez, Paul A. Northcott, Stefan M. Pfister, Steven C. Clifford

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Neuropathologica · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
FundersGenentechBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungDeutsche KrebshilfeCHILDREN with CANCER UKUniversität HeidelbergBrain Tumour CharityGreat Ormond Street Hospital CharityCancer Research UKDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum
KeywordsConcordanceMedulloblastomaMeta-analysisBiologyComputational biologyBioinformaticsOncologyInternal medicineGeneticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2012, an international consensus paper reported that medulloblastoma comprises four molecular subgroups (WNT, SHH, Group 3, and Group 4), each associated with distinct genomic features and clinical behavior. Independently, multiple recent reports have defined further intra-subgroup heterogeneity in the form of biologically and clinically relevant subtypes. However, owing to differences in patient cohorts and analytical methods, estimates of subtype number and definition have been inconsistent, especially within Group 3 and Group 4. Herein, we aimed to reconcile the definition of Group 3/Group 4 MB subtypes through the analysis of a series of 1501 medulloblastomas with DNA-methylation profiling data, including 852 with matched transcriptome data. Using multiple complementary bioinformatic approaches, we compared the concordance of subtype calls between published cohorts and analytical methods, including assessments of class-definition confidence and reproducibility. While the lowest complexity solutions continued to support the original consensus subgroups of Group 3 and Group 4, our analysis most strongly supported a definition comprising eight robust Group 3/Group 4 subtypes (types I-VIII). Subtype II was consistently identified across all component studies, while all others were supported by multiple class-definition methods. Regardless of analytical technique, increasing cohort size did not further increase the number of identified Group 3/Group 4 subtypes. Summarizing the molecular and clinico-pathological features of these eight subtypes indicated enrichment of specific driver gene alterations and cytogenetic events amongst subtypes, and identified highly disparate survival outcomes, further supporting their biological and clinical relevance. Collectively, this study provides continued support for consensus Groups 3 and 4 while enabling robust derivation of, and categorical accounting for, the extensive intertumoral heterogeneity within Groups 3 and 4, revealed by recent high-resolution subclassification approaches. Furthermore, these findings provide a basis for application of emerging methods (e.g., proteomics/single-cell approaches) which may additionally inform medulloblastoma subclassification. Outputs from this study will help shape definition of the next generation of medulloblastoma clinical protocols and facilitate the application of enhanced molecularly guided risk stratification to improve outcomes and quality of life for patients and their families.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.014
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations311
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa NeuropathologicaSame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207