Artificial intelligence and omics in malignant gliomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is one of the most common and aggressive type of malignant glioma with an average survival time of 12-18 mo. Despite the utilization of extensive surgical resections using cutting-edge neuroimaging, and advanced chemotherapy and radiotherapy, the prognosis remains unfavorable. The heterogeneity of GBM and the presence of the blood-brain barrier further complicate the therapeutic process. It is crucial to adopt a multifaceted approach in GBM research to understand its biology and advance toward effective treatments. In particular, omics research, which primarily includes genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and epigenomics, helps us understand how GBM develops, finds biomarkers, and discovers new therapeutic targets. The availability of large-scale multiomics data requires the development of computational models to infer valuable biological insights for the implementation of precision medicine. Artificial intelligence (AI) refers to a host of computational algorithms that is becoming a major tool capable of integrating large omics databases. Although the application of AI tools in GBM-omics is currently in its early stages, a thorough exploration of AI utilization to uncover different aspects of GBM (subtype classification, prognosis, and survival) would have a significant impact on both researchers and clinicians. Here, we aim to review and provide database resources of different AI-based techniques that have been used to study GBM pathogenesis using multiomics data over the past decade. We summarize different types of GBM-related omics resources that can be used to develop AI models. Furthermore, we explore various AI tools that have been developed using either individual or integrated multiomics data, highlighting their applications and limitations in the context of advancing GBM research and treatment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".