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.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.