Targeted metabolomics analyses for brain tumor margin assessment during surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Identification and removal of micro-scale residual tumor tissue during brain tumor surgery are key for survival in glioma patients. For this goal, High-Resolution Magic Angle Spinning Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (HRMAS NMR) spectroscopy-based assessment of tumor margins during surgery has been an effective method. However, the time required for metabolite quantification and the need for human experts such as a pathologist to be present during surgery are major bottlenecks of this technique. While machine learning techniques that analyze the NMR spectrum in an untargeted manner (i.e. using the full raw signal) have been shown to effectively automate this feedback mechanism, high dimensional and noisy structure of the NMR signal limits the attained performance. RESULTS: In this study, we show that identifying informative regions in the HRMAS NMR spectrum and using them for tumor margin assessment improves the prediction power. We use the spectra normalized with the ERETIC (electronic reference to access in vivo concentrations) method which uses an external reference signal to calibrate the HRMAS NMR spectrum. We train models to predict quantities of metabolites from annotated regions of this spectrum. Using these predictions for tumor margin assessment provides performance improvements up to 4.6% the Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC-ROC) and 2.8% the Area Under the Precision-Recall Curve (AUC-PR). We validate the importance of various tumor biomarkers and identify a novel region between 7.97 ppm and 8.09 ppm as a new candidate for a glioma biomarker. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The code is released at https://github.com/ciceklab/targeted_brain_tumor_margin_assessment. The data underlying this article are available in Zenodo, at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5781769. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".