DNA methylation classification in diffuse glioma shows little spatial heterogeneity after adjusting for tumor purity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Intratumoral heterogeneity is a hallmark of diffuse gliomas. We used neuronavigation to acquire 133 image-guided and spatially-separated stereotactic biopsy samples from 16 adult patients with a diffuse glioma, which we characterized using DNA methylation arrays. Samples were obtained from regions with and without imaging abnormalities. Methylation profiles were analyzed to devise a three-dimensional reconstruction of genetic and epigenetic heterogeneity. Molecular aberrations indicated that tumor was found outside imaging abnormalities, underlining the infiltrative nature of this tumor and the limitations of current routine imaging modalities. We demonstrate that tumor purity is highly variable between samples and largely explains apparent epigenetic spatial heterogeneity. Indeed, we observed that DNA methylation subtypes are highly conserved in space after adjusting for tumor purity. Genome-wide heterogeneity analysis showed equal or increased heterogeneity among normal tissue when compared to tumor. These findings were validated in a separate cohort of 61 multi-sector tumor and 64 normal samples. Our findings underscore the infiltrative nature of diffuse gliomas and suggest that heterogeneity in DNA methylation is innate to somatic cells and not a characteristic feature of this tumor type.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".