ArticleActa neuropathologica communications2026
Methylation profiling and alternative classification approaches in a glioma-enriched FFPE stereotaxic biopsy cohort.
Article in Acta neuropathologica communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
DNA methylation profiling of CNS tumors supports and refines histological diagnoses. Tumor DNA methylation signatures allow for an alignment with reference methylation classes and copy number profiling required for molecular grading. Overall, and especially in cases with limited tissue like in stereotaxic (STX) biopsies, there is a need for informed triage to most promising analysis techniques. Here, we investigated the diagnostic potential and accuracy of DNA methylation profiling and molecular grading in STX samples. FFPE samples of 237 patients were subjected to DNA methylation analysis including the Heidelberg (v11b4), Bethesda (v2) and EpiDiP brain tumor classifiers, copy number profiling and tumor deconvolution using MethylCIBERSORT. 90.5% of samples (n = 232) were allocated DNA methylation classes, with 61.6% reaching Heidelberg classifier scores of > 0.84. Indicatory copy number variations (CNVs) were detectable in 96.9% of cases. Recursive partitioning supported by a resampling-based validation with repeated random subsampling pointed towards brain tumor classifier dependent minimum analyte inputs to reach robust calibrated scores for DNA methylation class allocation. Successful integrative diagnostics furthermore depended on pre-classifier H&E diagnoses with 96.2% of H&E malignant diffuse gliomas, 91.5% of H&E diffuse gliomas but only 60% of H&E circumscribed gliomas classifiable using the Heidelberg brain tumor classifier. When the alternative classifiers EpiDiP and Bethesda were used, higher DNA input amounts ameliorated the classification robustness. Nevertheless, diagnostics of high-grade gliomas in midline location and lower-grade glial/glioneuronal tumors posed a challenge. Our findings demonstrate the broad applicability of DNA methylation profiling and molecular grading to small brain tumor specimens under the caveat of certain tumors and locations potentially benefiting from additional molecular as well as computational approaches to increase methylation signals relevant for classification in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.