DNA methylation profiling to predict recurrence risk in meningioma: development and validation of a nomogram to optimize clinical management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Variability in standard-of-care classifications precludes accurate predictions of early tumor recurrence for individual patients with meningioma, limiting the appropriate selection of patients who would benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy to delay recurrence. We aimed to develop an individualized prediction model of early recurrence risk combining clinical and molecular factors in meningioma. METHODS: DNA methylation profiles of clinically annotated tumor samples across multiple institutions were used to develop a methylome model of 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS). Subsequently, a 5-year meningioma recurrence score was generated using a nomogram that integrated the methylome model with established prognostic clinical factors. Performance of both models was evaluated and compared with standard-of-care models using multiple independent cohorts. RESULTS: The methylome-based predictor of 5-year RFS performed favorably compared with a grade-based predictor when tested using the 3 validation cohorts (ΔAUC = 0.10, 95% CI: 0.03-0.018) and was independently associated with RFS after adjusting for histopathologic grade, extent of resection, and burden of copy number alterations (hazard ratio 3.6, 95% CI: 1.8-7.2, P < 0.001). A nomogram combining the methylome predictor with clinical factors demonstrated greater discrimination than a nomogram using clinical factors alone in 2 independent validation cohorts (ΔAUC = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.22-0.27) and resulted in 2 groups with distinct recurrence patterns (hazard ratio 7.7, 95% CI: 5.3-11.1, P < 0.001) with clinical implications. CONCLUSIONS: The models developed and validated in this study provide important prognostic information not captured by previously established clinical and molecular factors which could be used to individualize decisions regarding postoperative therapeutic interventions, in particular whether to treat patients with adjuvant radiotherapy versus observation alone.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".