Research Paper Volume 12, Issue 18 pp 18297—18321

Figure 5. Identification and validation of the GDRG-based classification of GBM patients. Consensus clustering matrix for k = 2, which was the optimal cluster number in the TCGA training cohort (A) and CGGA validation cohort (G). (B and H) CDF curves of the consensus score (k = 2-9) in the TCGA and CGGA cohorts. (C and I) Relative change in the area under the CDF curve (k = 2-9) in the TCGA and CGGA cohorts. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses of the patients with MC1 and MC2 GBMs in the TCGA (D) and CGGA (J) cohorts, indicating that the patients with MC1 GBMs had poorer OS than those with MC2 GBMs. Heatmap and clinicopathological features of the two MCs in the TCGA (E) and CGGA (K) cohorts showing that the expression levels of the type I GDRG metagene were significantly higher and the levels of the type II GDRG metagene were significantly lower in patients with MC1 GBMs than in patients with MC2 GBMs. (F and L) Comparisons of the clinicopathological variables and type I and II metagenes between the two MCs of GBM patients in the TCGA and CGGA cohorts.