Skip to main content
. 2022 May 28;12:8979. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-12955-2

Table 5.

Best classifiers in patients with or without SRL presurgical treatment, extrasellar growth, sinus invasion, biological sex and GNAS mutational status.

Fragmenting condition Evaluated comparison Fragmented population Na Best panel of classifiers ACC p-value
A. SRL presurgical treatement CR + PR vs NR No (9 vs 7) PLAGL1 + PEBP1 + E-cadherin 88.89% 0.003
Yes (33 vs 19) SSTR5 + DRD2 long isoform + E-cadherin 70.65% 0.001
CR vs NR No (6 vs 7) Age + SSTR2 + E-cadherin 100.00% 5.83E−04
Yes (20 vs 19) PLAGL1 + IN1GHRL + E-cadherin 76.97% 9.43E−04
PR vs NR No (3 vs 7) Not found
Yes (13 vs 19) SSTR5 + PEBP1 74.29% 0.003
CR vs PR No (6 vs 3) SSTR2 + E-cadherin 100% 0.012
Yes (20 vs 13) PEBP1 + IN1GHRL 76.82% 4.02E−04
B. Extrasellar growth CR + PR vs NR No (18 vs 1) Not found
Yes (20 vs 19) GHRL 71.32% 0.005
CR vs NR No (12 vs 1) Not found
Yes (11 vs 19) Not found
PR vs NR No (6 vs 1) Not found
Yes (9 vs 19) Not found
CR vs PR No (12 vs 6) SSTR5 + PEBP1 87.50% 0.004
Yes (11 vs 9) SSTR5 + IN1GHRL + E-cadherin 79.80% 0.012
C. Sinus Invasion CR + PR vs NR No (26 vs 7) Not found
Yes (12 vs 10) AIP 77.50% 0.015
CR vs NR No (18 vs 7) SSTR2 + ARRB1 + KLK10 81.75% 0.007
Yes (5 vs 10) PEBP1 + AIP + IN1GHRL 85.00% 0.017
PR vs NR No (8 vs 7) Ki-67 + IN1GHRL 85.71% 0.007
Yes (7 vs 10) Not found
CR vs PR No (18 vs 8) SSTR2 + IN1GHRL + KLK10 86.61% 0.009
Yes (5 vs 7) Not found
D. Gender CR + PR vs NR Female (25 vs 10) PEBP1 + GHRL 73.78% 0.007
Male (18 vs 16) Age + E-cadherin 80.83% 0.001
CR vs NR Female (14 vs 10) PEBP1 + E-cadherin + AIP 79.76% 0.005
Male (12 vs 16) Age + PLAGL1 + E-cadherin 85.45% 4.91E−04
PR vs NR Female (11 vs 10) Not found
Male (6 vs 16) SSTR2 + PLAGL1 + GHRL/ARRB1 85.35% 0.003
CR vs PR Female (14 vs 11) SSTR2 + PEBP1 74.68% 0.016
Male (12 vs 6) DRD2 short and long isoform + E-cadherin 80.00% 0.018
E. GNAS mutational status CR + PR vs NR WT (19 vs 14) SSTR2 + DRD2 long isoform + ARRB1 77.07% 0.003
Mutated (10 vs 5) Not found
CR vs NR WT (10 vs 14) Not found
Mutated (5 vs 5) PLAGL1 + E-cadherin + Ki-67 90.00% 0.024
PR vs NR WT (9 vs 14) SSTR5 + ARRB1 72.22% 0.014
Mutated (5 vs 5) Not found
CR vs PR WT (10 vs 9) PEBP1 + E-cadherin 84.44% 0.004
Mutated (5 vs 5) Not found
F. Hypointense T2 signaling CR + PR vs NR NO HYPO (23 vs 15) SSTR3 + ARRB1 + AIP 74.18% 0.008
HYPO (14 vs 8) DRD2 short isoform + Ki-67 75.00% 0.040
CR vs NR NO HYPO (13 vs 15) SSTR3 + SSTR2 + Ki-67 88.46% 8,75E−05
HYPO (9 vs 8) E-cadherin 87.50% 0.003
PR vs NR NO HYPO (10 vs 15) Age + DRD2 short isoform + PEBP1 76.79% 0.022
HYPO (5 vs 8) Not found
CR vs PR NO HYPO (10 vs 9) DRD2 short isoform + KLK10 85.04% 0.001
HYPO (5 vs 5) Not found

For each subgroup, the best panel/s of classifiers (with accuracy higher than the maximal one achieved by the classifiers using the whole cohort without fragmentation) in each comparison are shown. aThe third column refers to the condition in the first column. ACC Accuracy.