LGG-02. DRUG-CLASS SPECIFIC GENE-BASED MAPK SENSITIVITY SCORES (MSS) PREDICT SENSITIVITY TO MAPK INHIBITORS AND IDENTIFY IMMUNE INFILTRATION AS PUTATIVE TARGET IN PEDIATRIC LOW-GRADE GLIOMAS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract INTRODUCTION Pediatric low-grade gliomas (pLGG), the most common brain tumors in children, are driven by alterations in the MAPK pathway. Several clinical trials have shown the potential for MAPK inhibitors (MAPKi) treatment in pLGG. However, the range of response is broad, even within entities sharing the same driving genetic MAPK alteration. A predictive stratification tool is needed to identify patients that will be more likely to benefit from MAPKi therapy. METHODS We generated gene-expression-based MAPKi sensitivity scores (MSS) for each MAPKi class (BRAFi, MEKi, ERKi), based on MAPK-related genes differentially regulated between MAPKi sensitive and non-sensitive cell lines from the Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer (GDSC) dataset. Single sample Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (ssGSEA) was used to measure and validate our MSSs in the GDSC dataset and an independent PDX dataset (XevaDB). The validated signatures were tested in a pLGG-specific background, using gene expression data from PA cell lines and primary pLGG samples. RESULTS Our MSS could differentiate MAPKi sensitive cells in the GDSC dataset, and significantly correlated with MAPKi response in the XevaDB PDX dataset. The MSS were able to differentiate glioma entities with differing MAPK alterations from non-MAPK altered entities, and showed the highest scores in pLGG. The MSSs were heterogeneous within pLGG entities with a common MAPK alteration, as observed in MAPKi clinical studies. Intriguingly, a strong correlation between our MSS and the predicted immune cell infiltration rate, as determined by the Estimate score, was observed and confirmed in a pLGG scRNA sequencing dataset. CONCLUSION These data demonstrate the relevance of gene-expression signatures to predict response to MAPKi treatment in pLGG, and will be further investigated in a prospective manner in upcoming clinical trials. In addition, our data could suggest a role of immune infiltration in the response to MAPKi in pLGG that warrants further validation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".