F.3 Multicentre prospective validation of integrated molecular classification of meningiomas and prediction of recurrence risk using DNA methylation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Meningiomas have significant heterogeneity between patients, making prognostication challenging. For this study, we prospectively validate the prognostic capabilities of a DNA methylation-based predictor and multiomic molecular groups (MG) of meningiomas. Methods: DNA methylation profiles were generated using the Illumina EPICarray. MG were assigned as previously published. Performance of our methylation-based predictor and MG were compared with WHO grade using generalized boosted regression modeling by generating time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and computing area under the ROC curves (AUCs) along with their 95% confidence interval using bootstrap resampling. Results: 295 meningiomas treated from 2018-2021 were included. Methylation-defined high-risk meningiomas had significantly poorer PFS and OS compared to low-risk cases (p<0.0001). Methylation risk increased with higher WHO grade and MG. Higher methylome risk (HR 4.89, 95%CI 2.02-11.82) and proliferative MG (HR 4.11, 95%CI 1.29-13.06) were associated with significantly worse PFS independent of WHO grade, extent of resection, and adjuvant RT. Both methylome-risk and MG classification predicted 3- and 5-year PFS and OS more accurately than WHO grade alone (ΔAUC=0.10-0.23). 42 cases were prescribed adjuvant RT prospectively although RT did not significantly improve PFS in high-risk cases (p=0.41). Conclusions: Molecular profiling outperforms conventional WHO grading for prognostication in an independent, prospectively collected cohort of meningiomas.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".