MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Association of plasma biomarkers with recurrence in glioblastoma.

2025· article· en· W4410820120 on OpenAlexaff
Miyo K. Chatanaka, Andrew Ajisebutu, Leonardo de Macêdo Filho, Lisa Avery, Mingyue Wang, Catherine Demos, Jermaine Brown, Taron Gorham, Salvia Misaghian, Nikhil Padmanabhan, Daniel Romero, Martin Stengelin, Anu Mathew, George B. Sigal, Jacob N. Wohlstadter, Craig Horbinski, Kathleen McCortney, 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
KeywordsMedicineGlioblastomaOncologyInternal medicineCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e14017 Background: Adult-type diffuse gliomas are common malignant tumors known for their high recurrence rates, regardless of grade. High recurrence is due to incomplete resection of the tumors and the infiltrative nature of the tumor cells. Unfortunately, prediction of recurrence relies solely on MRI, a method that is expensive and susceptible to errors, treatment and pseudo-progression effects. Capturing recurrence prior to MRI is an unmet clinical need and could allow for earlier intervention or enrolment of patients into clinical trials. Liquid biopsy has emerged as a promising approach. Methods: Previously collected patient plasma was retrieved from three sites: Northwestern University Tumor Biobank, Penn State Neuroscience Biorepository and University Health Network Biobank (Cross-sectional samples(all primary vs all recurrent) n = 264, patients with multiple samples (longitudinal) n = 44; Groups = Glioblastoma (GBM), astrocytoma, oligodendroglioma) and analyzed retrospectively for seven proteomic markers: GFAP, NEFL, FABP4, MMP1, MMP3, MMP9 and total tau (tTau) using research-use-only electrochemiluminescence assays available from Meso Scale Discovery. For the cross-sectional analysis (independent samples per patient), Wilcoxon rank sum test with post hoc Holm’s correction was used to compare biomarker values in samples from individuals with primary and recurrent tumors, after adjusting for sex differences. For the longitudinal analysis of paired primary and recurrence samples, Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used. Survival probability was tested through Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Results: In the cross-sectional analysis of the diffuse gliomas (GBM = 77+129 [Batch 1 + Batch 2], Oligodendroglioma = 23 +11, Astrocytoma = 26 + 25), we found that in the GBM group, the median values of MMP9 and GFAP were lower during recurrence. The median NEFL value was higher during GBM recurrence but did not achieve statistical significance, although the same effect was observed in the longitudinal analysis. In survival analyses, higher MMP3 and MMP9 in primary case samples across all diffuse gliomas were significantly associated with poorer survival, but this significance was lost during recurrence, indicating potentially important differences between a primary and a recurrent state. Conclusions: This cross-sectional and longitudinal retrospective pilot study evaluated seven plasma markers for the potential capability of predicting tumor recurrence in adult-type diffuse gliomas. While we found no significant differences across diffuse gliomas overall, subgroup analyses revealed recurrence-associated patterns. These findings suggest that certain markers could complement imaging for recurrence detection and perhaps prediction. Larger and more comprehensive studies are warranted.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.382 · 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→