MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410396303 · doi:10.1038/s41525-025-00494-4

Novel germline and somatic variants in familial and sporadic meningioma genes

2025· article· en· W4410396303 on OpenAlexafffund
Bouchra Ouled Amar Bencheikh, Allison A. Dilliott, Julie Gauthier, Sandra B. Laurent, Amirthagowri Ambalavanan, Dan Spiegelman, Alexandre Dionne-Laporte, Jaber Lyahyai, Robert L. Martuza, Jörn Peter Sieb, Sali M.K. Farhan, Patrick A. Dion, Stefan‐M. Pulst, Guy A. Rouleau

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Genomic Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMeningioma and schwannoma management
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health CentreMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsGermlineSomatic cellGeneticsGeneGermline mutationMeningiomaBiologyMutationMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Meningiomas arise from arachnoid cells in the meninges surrounding the brain and spinal cord and are attributed to NF2 pathogenic variants in, approximately 60% of cases. Using exome sequencing, we found heterozygous germline variants in nine potential novel meningioma genes across four families and four sporadic cases. We then screened for germline and somatic variants in these genes and 11 known meningioma genes in 76 sporadic meningiomas blood/tumor pairs. We identified 18 germline and 58 somatic variants in 18 of the 20 genes, including seven of our newly proposed meningioma genes: CSMD3, EXTL3, FAT3, RAB44, RARA, RECQL4, and TNRC6A. Chromosomal abnormalities were identified in 39 of 49 tumors that also carried germline or somatic variants, with 71.8% encompassing NF2. This study provides potential novel genetic risk factors of meningiomas appropriate for further exploration from the greater scientific community and pathways to consider in the design of future therapeutic approaches.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.790

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj Genomic MedicineSame topicMeningioma and schwannoma managementFrench-language works237,207