MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Association of plasma biomarkers with diagnostic molecular markers for potential diagnosis and prognosis of diffuse gliomas.

2025· article· en· W4410816902 on OpenAlexaff
Leonardo de Macêdo Filho, Miyo K. Chatanaka, Andrew Ajisebutu, Lisa Avery, Mingyue Wang, Catherine Demos, Jermaine Brown, Taron Gorham, Salvia Misaghian, Nikhil Padmanabhan, Hans Layman, Daniel Romero, Martin Stengelin, Anu Mathew, George B. Sigal, Jacob N. Wohlstadter, Gelareh Zadeh, Alireza Mansouri, Eleftherios P. Diamandis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGliomaPathologyOncologyInternal medicineCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2045 Background: Diffuse gliomas were recently reclassified based on the 2021 WHO Classification criteria. Several molecular changes which carry diagnostic and prognostic power have been added to the classification parameters, including IDH1 mutation and MGMT promotor methylation. To characterize these molecular changes, however, an invasive biopsy is required. Our goal was to examine the relationship between seven plasma biomarkers for diffuse glioma and the established molecular changes and delineate if these markers can be used as surrogates of these molecular changes. Methods: Seven candidate markers, namely glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), neurofilament light (NEFL), matrix metalloproteinase 1, 3, 9 (MMP1, MMP3, MMP9), total Tau (tTau) and fatty acid binding protein 4 (FABP4) were evaluated by quantitative research-use-only electrochemiluminescence assays available from Meso Scale Discovery by comparing the protein concentration distribution with non-parametric Wilcoxon rank sum tests and multiple testing adjustment. The molecular markers tested were IDH1, MGMT promotor and ATRX. The discovery cohort consisted of 49 IDH1 mutant (39%) and 77 IDH1 wildtype (61%) gliomas. Among this retrospective cohort were 103 primary samples (collected at diagnosis) and 23 recurrent samples (collected at time of recurrence). The retrospective validation cohort consisted of 36 IDH1 mutant (22%) and 129 IDH1 wildtype (78%), with 64 primary samples and 76 recurrent samples. Results: Several of the proteomic markers showed significant associations with genetic markers at an adjusted significance level of P < 0.05. For IDH1 status, the strongest association was with NEFL, with IDH1 wildtype samples showing higher levels of the protein. For ATRX expression, high FABP4 was correlated with ATRX retention. As expected, survival analysis based on molecular markers yielded that IDH1 status was most predictive of survival both in primary tumors and recurrent tumors. MGMT promotor methylation was predictive of survival in primary cases but not recurrent cases. When combining the genetic markers with protein concentrations, we were able to see some improvement in survival prediction. Conclusions: We demonstrate that some plasma biomarkers, particularly NEFL and FABP4, show significant associations with key molecular changes in diffuse gliomas, including IDH1 status and ATRX retention/loss. Future research will determine whether these proteomic markers can serve as surrogates for molecular alterations and assist in potentially improved diagnosis and monitoring of diffuse gliomas.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→