ArticleBrain pathology (Zurich, Switzerland)2026
Clinical evaluation of the CrossNN DNA methylation classifier for central nervous system tumors.
Article in Brain pathology (Zurich, Switzerland), 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
DNA methylation profiling is an integral diagnostic tool in the classification of central nervous system (CNS) tumors. While the Heidelberg CNS Tumor Methylation Classifier is widely used to support CNS tumor diagnostics, new classifiers such as CrossNN are emerging. However, their clinical performance and added value within routine diagnostic workflows remain insufficiently explored. In this study, we evaluated the diagnostic performance of the CrossNN classifier in a real-world CNS tumor cohort and compared it with the established Heidelberg classifier to assess its potential as both a non-inferior alternative and a complementary tool to improve diagnostic accuracy. A retrospective cohort of CNS tumors profiled using Illumina Human Methylation 930k EPIC v2 BeadChip arrays was analyzed. Classifier outputs were compared with integrated WHO CNS5 (2021) diagnoses. In addition, CrossNN and Heidelberg outputs were harmonized to WHO CNS5 (2021) tumor type levels and evaluated both individually and within sequential and parallel diagnostic workflows. The proposed workflows were subsequently assessed in an independent prospective validation cohort. Among 205 samples, CrossNN correctly classified 88.8% of cases and demonstrated 86.8% concordance with the Heidelberg classifier. CrossNN demonstrated non-inferior classification performance compared with the Heidelberg classifier. Combining both classifiers increased the number of clinically informative and correct classifications by nearly 10%. This finding was confirmed in an independent validation cohort of 41 samples. In conclusion, these results demonstrate the complementary strength of the CrossNN and Heidelberg classifiers as a dual-classifier strategy to improve diagnostic confidence and accuracy in routine CNS tumor diagnostics.
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.