MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015188401 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noaa077

Clinical impact of combined epigenetic and molecular analysis of pediatric low-grade gliomas

2020· article· en· W3015188401 on OpenAlexafffund
Kohei Fukuoka, Yasin Mamatjan, Ruth Tatevossian, Michal Zápotocký, Scott Ryall, Ana Guerreiro Stücklin, Julie Bennett, Liana Nobre, Anthony Arnoldo, Betty Luu, Ji Wen, Kaicen Zhu, Alberto J. León, Dax Torti, Trevor J. Pugh, Lili‐Naz Hazrati, Normand Laperrière, James M. Drake, James T. Rutka, Peter B. Dirks, Abhaya V. Kulkarni, Michael D. Taylor, Ute Bartels, Annie Huang, Gelareh Zadeh, Kenneth Aldape, Vijay Ramaswamy, Éric Bouffet, Matija Snuderl, David W. Ellison, Cynthia Hawkins, Uri Tabori

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Cancer InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMethylationEpigeneticsDNA methylationGliomaPathologicalOncologyPathologyUnivariate analysisMultivariate analysisMedicineBiologyInternal medicineCancer researchGeneGeneticsGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Both genetic and methylation analysis have been shown to provide insight into the diagnosis and prognosis of many brain tumors. However, the implication of methylation profiling and its interaction with genetic alterations in pediatric low-grade gliomas (PLGGs) are unclear. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive analysis of PLGG with long-term clinical follow-up. In total 152 PLGGs were analyzed from a range of pathological subtypes, including 40 gangliogliomas. Complete molecular analysis was compared with genome-wide methylation data and outcome in all patients. For further analysis of specific PLGG groups, including BRAF p.V600E mutant gliomas, we compiled an additional cohort of clinically and genetically defined tumors from 3 large centers. RESULTS: Unsupervised hierarchical clustering revealed 5 novel subgroups of PLGG. These were dominated by nonneoplastic factors such as tumor location and lymphocytic infiltration. Midline PLGG clustered together while deep hemispheric lesions differed from lesions in the periphery. Mutations were distributed throughout these location-driven clusters of PLGG. A novel methylation cluster suggesting high lymphocyte infiltration was confirmed pathologically and exhibited worse progression-free survival compared with PLGG harboring similar molecular alterations (P = 0.008; multivariate analysis: P = 0.035). Although the current methylation classifier revealed low confidence in 44% of cases and failed to add information in most PLGG, it was helpful in reclassifying rare cases. The addition of histopathological and molecular information to specific methylation subgroups such as pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma-like tumors could stratify these tumors into low and high risk (P = 0.0014). CONCLUSION: The PLGG methylome is affected by multiple nonneoplastic factors. Combined molecular and pathological analysis is key to provide additional information when methylation classification is used for PLGG in the clinical setting.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations38
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207