BIOM-39. PLASMA PROTEOMICS REVEAL KEY PRELIMINARY BIOMARKERS FOR GLIOBLASTOMA PROGRESSION AND DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Adult-type diffuse gliomas, including glioblastoma (GBM), astrocytoma, and oligodendroglioma, are among the most aggressive brain tumors, often exhibiting poor prognosis. Diagnosis currently relies on MRI and biopsy, but for individuals ineligible for resection, non-invasive diagnostic tools are lacking. Additionally, distinguishing primary from recurrent disease and monitoring therapy response remain critical unmet needs. We evaluated seven candidate proteomic markers in plasma from individuals with GBM (n=143), astrocytoma (n=50), oligodendroglioma (n=32), and non-tumor controls (n=30) using research-use-only electrochemiluminescence assays (Meso Scale Discovery). Key questions included: (1) Do protein levels change between primary and recurrent GBM? (2) Do protein concentrations correlate with survival in primary vs. recurrent disease? (3) Can markers predict GBM tumor burden? (4) Can they distinguish GBM from other gliomas and controls? The results showed that neurofilament light chain (NEFL) increased significantly from primary to recurrent GBM (unadjusted p = 0.008). In primary GBM, low fatty acid binding protein 4 (FABP4) correlated with survival (adjusted p = 0.028), but no significance was observed in recurrent disease after adjustment. Machine learning (Lasso regression) showed poor performance in predicting tumor volume (cross-validated R² = 0.192). However, dimensionality reduction (PCA-UMAP) revealed distinct clustering of GBM samples versus astrocytomas, oligodendrogliomas, and controls. A random forest classifier trained on a 70:30 split achieved strong diagnostic performance (test AUC = 0.96, sensitivity = 0.95, specificity = 0.83). To conclude, plasma proteomic markers, particularly NEFL and FABP4, show promise for monitoring recurrence and prognostic stratification in GBM. While tumor volume prediction was unreliable, machine learning models excelled in differentiating GBM from other gliomas and controls, suggesting clinical utility for non-invasive diagnosis. Further validation is warranted to refine biomarker panels for precision oncology applications.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".