CMET-30. COMPREHENSIVE METHYLOME ANALYSIS OF EGFR-MUTANT PRIMARY LUNG ADENOCARCINOMA AND MATCHED BRAIN METASTASIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Brain metastasis (BM) in patients with EGFR-mutant lung adenocarcinoma is a major determinant of overall survival. Novel insight into the genetic and epigenetic underpinnings of BM development is lacking. The aim of this study is to compare the methylome of EGFR-mutant primary lung adenocarcinoma (EGFRM-PLA) and matched BM to identify important alterations for the mechanisms of BM. Matched EGFRM-PLA and BM tumors from seven patients were profiled using the Illumina Infinium MethylationEPIC BeadChip array. Unsupervised clustering analyses of the 14 samples showed a similar whole DNA methylation signatures between EGFRM-PLA and BM tumors. Furthermore, PCA plot highlighted that seven matched BM and lung tumor samples were clustered together closely based on matching pairs for the most variable probes (2.5K to 10K). These observations indicate high level of concordance and the same cell of origin. However, these fourteen samples clustered into two groups based on tumor site being lung or brain based on 83K differentially methylated CpG sites. Of the 83K probes, 2.4K were either hypermethylated or hypomethylated in all lung samples. A quarter of these 2.4K probes were located in promoter regions. Specifically, we identified differences in methylation status of EGFR/ALK promoter regions in lung tumors versus BM. CNV analyses showed higher deep deletions of chromosomes and genes in BM compared to EGFRM-PLA. Leukocytes unmethylation for purity (LUMP) scores which indicate immune cell infiltration were similar between lung and BM pairs (Mean LUMP_score=0.64) consistent with high immune cell infiltration. Our results indicated a similar whole DNA methylation signature of EGFRM-PLA and matched BM, while comprehensive analysis identified important differentially methylated probes. Distinct differences in CNV alterations were observed in lung versus brain samples. The BM and EGFRM-PLA showed similar tumor purity and immune cell components. Overall, tumor methylation profiling provides clinically important information regarding biology of BM in EGFRM-PLA.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".