F.7 Chromosome 1p loss and 1q gain are highly prognostic and can inform WHO grading of meningioma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The WHO grade of meningioma was updated in 2021 to include homozygous deletions of CDKN2A/B and TERT promotor mutations. Previous work including the recent cIMPACT-NOW statement have discussed the potential value of including chromosomal copy number alterations to help refine the current grading system. Methods: Chromosomal copy number profiles were inferred from from 1964 meningiomas using DNA methylation. Regularized Cox regresssion was used to identify CNAs independenly associated with post-surgical and post-RT PFS. Outcomes were stratified by WHO grade and novel CNAs to assess their potential value in WHO critiera. Results: Patients with WHO grade 1 tumours and chromosome 1p loss had similar outcomes to those with WHO grade 2 tumours (median PFS 5.83 [95% CI 4.36-Inf] vs 4.48 [4.09-5.18] years). Those with chromosome 1p loss and 1q gain had similar outcomes to those with WHO grade 3 cases regardless of initial grade (median PFS 2.23 [1.28-Inf] years WHO grade 1, 1.90 [1.23-2.25] years WHO grade 2, compared to 2.27 [1.68-3.05] years in WHO grade 3 cases overall). Conclusions: We advocate for chromosome 1p loss being added as a criterion for a CNS WHO grade of 2 meningioma and addition of 1q gain as a criterion for a CNS WHO grade of 3.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".