ArticleInterdisciplinary sciences, computational life sciences2024
Integrating HRMAS-NMR Data and Machine Learning-Assisted Profiling of Metabolite Fluxes to Classify Low- and High-Grade Gliomas.
Article in Interdisciplinary sciences, computational life sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Multimodal artificial intelligence in glioma management: integrating neuroimaging and hematologic biomarkers for precision oncology.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Towards non-invasive diagnosis of glioblastoma: identifying metabolic biomarkers in liquid biopsies using a ROC-based approach.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Modernizing Neuro-Oncology: The Impact of Imaging, Liquid Biopsies, and AI on Diagnosis and Treatment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diagnosing and classifying central nervous system tumors such as gliomas or glioblastomas pose a significant challenge due to their aggressive and infiltrative nature. However, recent advancements in metabolomics and magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) offer promising avenues for differentiating tumor grades both in vivo and ex vivo. This study aimed to explore tissue-based metabolic signatures to classify/distinguish between low- and high-grade gliomas. Forty-six histologically confirmed, intact solid tumor samples from glioma patients were analyzed using high-resolution magic angle spinning nuclear magnetic resonance (HRMAS-NMR) spectroscopy. By integrating machine learning (ML) algorithms, spectral regions with the most discriminative potential were identified. Validation was performed through univariate and multivariate statistical analyses, along with HRMAS-NMR analyses of 46 paired plasma samples. Amongst the various ML models applied, the logistics regression identified 46 spectral regions capable of sub-classifying gliomas with accuracy 87% (F1-measure 0.87, Precision 0.82, Recall 0.93), whereas the extra-tree classifier identified three spectral regions with predictive accuracy of 91% (F1-measure 0.91, Precision 0.85, Recall 0.97). Wilcoxon test presented 51 spectral regions significantly differentiating low- and high-grade glioma groups (p < 0.05). Based on sensitivity and area under the curve values, 40 spectral regions corresponding to 18 metabolites were considered as potential biomarkers for tissue-based glioma classification and amongst these N-acetyl aspartate, glutamate, and glutamine emerged as the most important markers. These markers were validated in paired plasma samples, and their absolute concentrations were computed. Our results demonstrate that the metabolic markers identified through the HRMAS-NMR-ML analysis framework, and their associated metabolic networks, hold promise for targeted treatment planning and clinical interventions in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39331335What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.