MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380355153 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noad073.082

DIPG-35. IDENTIFYING DRIVER-SPECIFIC VULNERABILITIES IN PAEDIATRIC HIGH GRADE GLIOMA SUBTYPES

2023· article· en· W4380355153 on OpenAlexaff
Antonella De Cola, Michael McNicholas, Amelia Foss, Cameron B. Lloyd, Steven Hébert, Damien Faury, Augusto Faria Andrade, Nada Jabado, Claudia L. Kleinman, Manav Pathania

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGliomaCancer researchTranscriptomePhenotypeGeneticsGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Paediatric high-grade gliomas (pHGGs) are incurable malignant brain tumours and a leading cause of cancer-related death in children. The majority of pHGGs carry lysine-to-methionine (K27M) or glycine-to-arginine/valine (G34R/V) mutations in histone variants H3.1 or H3.3. Moreover, histone mutations associate with different anatomical locations and co-segregating mutations defining distinct tumour subtypes within pHGG. However whether these co-occuring mutations can act as drivers to modify tumour phenotypes and drug sensitivities is currently unknown. In order to functionally evaluate the role of partner alterations and to identify new therapeutic targets, we developed in vivo tumour models of pHGG subtypes using in utero electroporation (IUE) in combination with piggyBac transposon and CRISPR technology. We also established ex vivo glioma stem cell (GSCs) lines from mouse models with different co-segregating mutations, able to engraft in syngeneic immune-competent mice. Then, we performed transcriptome analysis and drug screening identifying selective pharmacological vulnerabilities. Our approach represents a preclinical platform to evaluate subtype-specific precision therapies identifying new pathways involved in brain tumour initiation, progression and maintenance.

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 score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.906

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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