Back

Morphological set enrichment enables interpretable prognostication and molecular profiling of meningiomas

Ayad, M. A.; McCortney, K.; Congivaram, H. T. S.; Hjerthen, M. G.; Steffens, A.; Zhang, H.; Youngblood, M. W.; Heimberger, A. B.; Chandler, J. P.; Jamshidi, P.; Ahrendsen, J. T.; Magill, S. T.; Raleigh, D. R.; Horbinski, C. M.; Cooper, L. A. D.

2026-02-24 pathology
10.64898/2026.02.23.26346491 medRxiv
Show abstract

Meningiomas are the most common primary brain tumors and, despite their benign reputation, often behave aggressively. Meningiomas are morphologically heterogeneous, yet the full significance of their histologic diversity is unclear. This is in large part because many features are not readily quantifiable by traditional observer-based light microscopy. Molecular testing improves prognostic stratification, but is not universally accessible. We therefore sought to determine whether an artificial intelligence (AI)-trained program could predict specific genomic and epigenomic patterns in meningiomas, and whether it could extract more prognostic information out of standard hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) histopathology than the current WHO classification. To do this, we developed Morphologic Set Enrichment (MSE), an interpretable computational pathology framework that quantifies statistical enrichment of morphologic patterns, cells, and tissue architecture from H&E whole-slide images. The MSE meningioma histology program was able to accurately predict DNA methylation subtypes and concurrent chromosome 1p/22q losses, in the process identifying specific morphologic patterns associated with key genomic and epigenomic alterations. It also added prognostic value independent of standard clinical and pathological variables. These results demonstrate that AI-based quantitative morphologic profiling can capture clinically and biologically relevant information that redefines risk stratification for meningiomas, incorporating histological information not included in existing grading schemes.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Modern Pathology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.5%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 10%
8.4%
3
Neuro-Oncology Advances
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
4
Neuropathology and Applied Neurobiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
5
Brain
154 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
6.4%
6
Journal of Pathology Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
50% of probability mass above
7
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 36%
4.0%
8
Laboratory Investigation
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.1%
9
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 44%
2.6%
10
The Journal of Pathology
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
11
Acta Neuropathologica
51 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.1%
12
npj Precision Oncology
48 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.9%
13
Brain Communications
147 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
14
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.8%
15
Clinical Cancer Research
58 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.8%
16
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
17
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
18
Acta Neuropathologica Communications
81 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
19
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 41%
0.9%
20
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 17%
0.9%
21
Science Translational Medicine
111 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
22
Cancer Research
116 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
23
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 32%
0.7%
24
Annals of Neurology
57 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
25
Neuro-Oncology
30 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
26
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%