GR.6 Meningioma molecular classification predicts response to surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy: an integrated clinicomolecular analysis & prospective validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Meningiomas are the most common intracranial tumor with surgery, dural margin treatment, and radiotherapy as cornerstones of therapy. Response to treatment continues to be highly heterogeneous even across tumors of the same grade. Methods: Using a cohort of 2490 meningiomas in addition to 100 cases from the prospective RTOG-0539 phase II clinical trial, we define molecular biomarkers of response across multiple different, recently defined molecular classifications and use propensity score matching to mimic a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the role of extent of resection, dural marginal resection, and adjuvant radiotherapy on clinical outcome. Results: Gross tumor resection led to improved progression-free-survival (PFS) across all molecular groups (MG) and improved overall survival in proliferative meningiomas (HR 0.52, 95%CI 0.30-0.93). Dural margin treatment (Simpson grade 1/2) improved PFS versus complete tumor removal alone (Simpson 3). MG reliably predicted response to radiotherapy, including in the RTOG-0539 cohort. A molecular model developed using clinical trial cases discriminated response to radiotherapy better than standard of care grading in multiple cohorts (ΔAUC 0.12, 95%CI 0.10-0.14). Conclusions: We elucidate biological and molecular classifications of meningioma that influence response to surgery and radiotherapy in addition to introducing a novel molecular-based prediction model of response to radiation to guide treatment decisions.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".