MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Test performance of a DNA methylation–based liquid biopsy biomarker for detection and classification of pleural mesothelioma (PM).

2025· article· en· W4410822172 on OpenAlexaff
Sabine Schmid, Sami Ul Haq, Luna Jia Zhan, M. Catherine Brown, Devalben Patel, Frances A. Shepherd, Natasha B. Leighl, Adrian G. Sacher, Marc de Perrot, BC John Cho, Fatemeh Zaeimi, Miguel García-Pardo, Benjamin H. Lok, Scott V. Bratman, Ming‐Sound Tsao, Martin Früh, Penelope Ann Bradbury, Geoffrey Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational and environmental lung diseases
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMesotheliomaBiomarkerLiquid biopsyDNA methylationBiopsyPathologyMethylationOncologyCancer researchInternal medicineDNAGeneCancerBiologyGene expressionGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

8082 Background: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) profiling in pleural mesothelioma (PM) is challenging due to its molecular heterogeneity and lack of mesothelioma-specific mutations. Diagnosis can be challenging and may require repeat biopsies. Cell-free methylated DNA immunoprecipitation sequencing (cfMeDIP-seq) of plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) offers a non-invasive approach to analyzing differentially methylated regions (DMRs), providing insights into epigenetic changes that could serve as potential biomarkers for diagnosis, histological differentiation, and prognosis in PM. Methods: cfMeDIP-seq was performed on plasma samples from 55 PM patients and 24 asbestos-exposed non-cancer controls (NCC). Libraries were sequenced to an average depth of 70 million reads, and chromosomes 1-22 were binned into 300 bp windows for read tallying. For NCCs, bins with a mean beta-value <0.3 and CG density >2 (n = 3,537,691 windows) were analyzed. DMR analysis and pathway enrichment were conducted using R packages (limma, clusterProfiler), and machine learning models were developed with Python modules (pandas, numpy, sklearn). Results: Among the 55 PM patients (72% epithelioid, 13% biphasic, 15% sarcomatoid), the median age was 70 years, 85% were male, and 78% had prior asbestos exposure. Using a stringent filter (mean beta-value <0.1; CG density >5), a random forest classifier was developed with 141 windows, distinguishing PM from NCC with 91% accuracy, 88% precision (or positive predictive value, PPV), and an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.94 across 5-fold cross-validation cohorts. DMR analysis of epithelioid vs. sarcomatoid PM revealed 1,585 significantly different windows (adjusted p < 0.05), achieving 83% accuracy, 74% precision, and an AUC of 0.98. Gene ontology analysis indicated significant enrichment in RNA processing pathways. Among epithelioid PM patients, distinct DMRs were identified between those with overall survival (OS) ≤ 6 months and >6 months (n = 1,824 windows, adjusted p < 0.05). Patients with OS ≥ 36 months and <36 months showed 37 significantly differential windows (adjusted p < 0.05), though test performance assessment was limited by the small sample size. Conclusions: If validated, global methylome profiling of ctDNA via cfMeDIP-seq offers a novel, non-invasive method that may enhance accurate diagnosis and histological differentiation. Additionally, identifying epigenetic biomarkers could provide deeper insights into PM biology, paving the way for personalized medicine and improved patient outcomes.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 topicOccupational and environmental lung diseases→French-language works237,207→