PTHP-11. Assessment of Molecular Tools in Pediatric, Adolescent and Young Adult Meningioma Highlights Unique Biology and Underscores the Need for Lifespan Precision in Neuro-Oncology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Pediatric, adolescent and young adult patients (Ped/AYA; 0–39 years) with meningiomas are underrepresented in neuro-oncology research, despite meningiomas being the second most common primary brain tumor in this age group. While DNA methylation-based models have advanced classification and prognostication in adults, their utility in younger populations remains uncertain. To address this gap, we aimed to evaluate the performance of current DNA methylation-based classification and recurrence prediction models in Ped/AYA patients with meningiomas and identify age-associated molecular differences. As part of this study, we analyzed 1,568 meningioma samples with DNA methylation and clinical data, including subsets with whole-exome and RNA sequencing. Patients were grouped into Ped/AYA (≤39 years, n = 213) and adult (>39 years, n = 1,355) cohorts. We assessed classifier performance, performed subgroup-specific model retraining, and compared molecular profiles across age groups. Our results showed that molecular classification differed significantly between age groups, with Ped/AYA tumors less frequently belonging to the most aggressive Proliferative Molecular Group. The DNA methylation-based recurrence model performed well in adults (AUC = 0.83) but poorly in the Ped/AYA cohort (AUC = 0.57). However, retraining the model on only younger patients improved performance (AUC = 0.75). In addition, Ped/AYA tumors exhibited significantly fewer chromosomal alterations, including lower frequencies of 1p, 6q, and 14q loss (p<0.05). Taken together, these findings indicate that predominantly adult-trained methylation models underperform in younger meningioma patients due to both biological divergence and exclusion from training datasets. Our findings underscore the need for age-specific molecular tools to improve prognostication and support personalized care across the lifespan in neuro-oncology.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".