Racial distribution of molecularly classified brain tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background In many cancers, specific subtypes are more prevalent in specific racial backgrounds. However, little is known about the racial distribution of specific molecular types of brain tumors. Public data repositories lack data on many brain tumor subtypes as well as diagnostic annotation using the current World Health Organization classification. A better understanding of the prevalence of brain tumors in different racial backgrounds may provide insight into tumor predisposition and development, and improve prevention. Methods We retrospectively analyzed the racial distribution of 1709 primary brain tumors classified by their methylation profiles using clinically validated whole genome DNA methylation. Self-reported race was obtained from medical records. Our cohort included 82% White, 10% Black, and 8% Asian patients with 74% of patients reporting their race. Results There was a significant difference in the racial distribution of specific types of brain tumors. Blacks were overrepresented in pituitary adenomas (35%, P < .001), with the largest proportion of FSH/LH subtype. Whites were underrepresented at 47% of all pituitary adenoma patients (P < .001). Glioblastoma (GBM) IDH wild-type showed an enrichment of Whites, at 90% (P < .001), and a significantly smaller percentage of Blacks, at 3% (P < .001). Conclusions Molecularly classified brain tumor groups and subgroups show different distributions among the three main racial backgrounds suggesting the contribution of race to brain tumor development.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".