Clinical utility of whole-genome DNA methylation profiling as a primary molecular diagnostic assay for central nervous system tumors—A prospective study and guidelines for clinical testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Central nervous system (CNS) cancer is the 10th leading cause of cancer-associated deaths for adults, but the leading cause in pediatric patients and young adults. The variety and complexity of histologic subtypes can lead to diagnostic errors. DNA methylation is an epigenetic modification that provides a tumor type-specific signature that can be used for diagnosis. Methods: We performed a prospective study using DNA methylation analysis as a primary diagnostic method for 1921 brain tumors. All tumors received a pathology diagnosis and profiling by whole genome DNA methylation, followed by next-generation DNA and RNA sequencing. Results were stratified by concordance between DNA methylation and histopathology, establishing diagnostic utility. Results: Of the 1602 cases with a World Health Organization histologic diagnosis, DNA methylation identified a diagnostic mismatch in 225 cases (14%), 78 cases (5%) did not classify with any class, and in an additional 110 (7%) cases DNA methylation confirmed the diagnosis and provided prognostic information. Of 319 cases carrying 195 different descriptive histologic diagnoses, DNA methylation provided a definitive diagnosis in 273 (86%) cases, separated them into 55 methylation classes, and changed the grading in 58 (18%) cases. Conclusions: DNA methylation analysis is a robust method to diagnose primary CNS tumors, improving diagnostic accuracy, decreasing diagnostic errors and inconclusive diagnoses, and providing prognostic subclassification. This study provides a framework for inclusion of DNA methylation profiling as a primary molecular diagnostic test into professional guidelines for CNS tumors. The benefits include increased diagnostic accuracy, improved patient management, and refinements in clinical trial design.
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 | 0.018 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".