Brain tumour genetic network signatures of survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tumour heterogeneity is increasingly recognized as a major obstacle to therapeutic success across neuro-oncology. Gliomas are characterized by distinct combinations of genetic and epigenetic alterations, resulting in complex interactions across multiple molecular pathways. Predicting disease evolution and prescribing individually optimal treatment requires statistical models complex enough to capture the intricate (epi)genetic structure underpinning oncogenesis. Here, we formalize this task as the inference of distinct patterns of connectivity within hierarchical latent representations of genetic networks. Evaluating multi-institutional clinical, genetic and outcome data from 4023 glioma patients over 14 years, across 12 countries, we employ Bayesian generative stochastic block modelling to reveal a hierarchical network structure of tumour genetics spanning molecularly confirmed glioblastoma, IDH-wildtype; oligodendroglioma, IDH-mutant and 1p/19q codeleted; and astrocytoma, IDH-mutant. Our findings illuminate the complex dependence between features across the genetic landscape of brain tumours and show that generative network models reveal distinct signatures of survival with better prognostic fidelity than current gold standard diagnostic categories.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".