## 5 Conclusions
PCA score plot for PC 3 and PC 4 (a); PC 5 and PC 6 (b); PC 7 and PC 8 (c); PC 9 and PC 10 (d); Figure S2: ROC-AUC analysis for: the CMI group 1 vs. the CMI group 2, SVM method (a); the CMI group 1 vs. the CMI group 1 vs. the CMI group 2, FR method (b); the CMI group 1 vs. the CMI group 2, Catboost method (c); the CMI group 2 vs. the CMI group 3, SVM method (d); the CMI group 2 vs. the CMI group 3, Actboost method (f); the CMI group 1 vs. the CMI group 3, SVM method (g); the CMI group 1 vs. the CMI group 3, the CMI RF method (h); the CMI group 1 vs. the CMI group 1 vs. the CMI group 3, Catboost method (i); Figure S3: Informative features for: the CMI group 1 vs. the CMI group 2, SVM method (a); the CMI group 1 vs. the CMI group 2, RF method (b); the CMI group 1 vs. the CMI group 2, Catboost method (c); the CMI group 2 vs. the CMI group 3, SVM method (d); the CMI group 2 vs. the CMI group 3, RF method (e); the CMI group 2 vs. the CMI group 2 vs. the CMI group 3, Catboost method (f); the CMI group 3, SVM method (g); the CMI group 1 vs. the CMI group 1 vs. the CMI group 3, Catboost method (i); Figure S4: the CMI group 1 vs. the GBM group 3: SVM method ROC-AUC analysis (a), informative features (b); RF method ROC-AUC analysis (c), informative features (d); Catboost method ROC-AUC analysis (e), informative features (f); Table S1. Formulas for model performance evaluation metrics; Table S2. Optimized parameters' values for ML pipeline. References [86; 87] are cited in the Supplementary Materials. Conceptualization, D.A.V., O.P.C., Y.V.K. and N.A.N. ; methodology, O.P.C., A.G.P., Y.V.K. and N.A.N.N. ; software, D.A.V., D.A.O. and A.G.P. ; formal analysis, D.A.O., D.A.V., A.G.P. and T.V.K. ; data curation, T.V.K. ; writing--original draft preparation, D.A.V., O.P.C., T.V.K. and D.A.O. ; writing--review and editing, D.A.V., D.A.O., A.G.P., T.V.K., Y.V.K., O.P.C. and N.A.N.N. ; supervision, Y.V.K. ; funding acquisition, N.A.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. The work was carried out within the framework of the State assignment project of the IA&E SB RAS # WONG-2024-0025. The work of [PERSON] was partially supported within the state assignment of NRC \"Kurchatov Institute\". The work of [PERSON] was supported by the Tomsk State University Development Programme (Priority-2030). The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Inter-Institutional Commission on Biological Ethics at the Institute of Cytology and Genetics, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Permission #78, 16 April 2021). Not applicable. The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results. * [PERSON] et al. (2022) [PERSON]; [PERSON] [PERSON]; [PERSON] [PERSON]; [PERSON] [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON] [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; et al. Clinical validation of a spectroscopic liquid biopsy for earlier detection of brain cancer. _Neurooncol. Adv._**2022**, \(4\), vdc2024. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
* [PERSON] et al. (2021) [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON] [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON] Early economic evaluation to guide the development of a spectroscopic liquid biopsy for the detection of brain cancer. _Int. J. Technol. Assess Health Care_**2021**, _37_, E41. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
* [PERSON] et al. (2019) [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON], [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; et al. Developing infrared spectroscopic detection for stratifying brain tumour patients: Glioblastoma multiforme vs. lymphoma. _Analyst_**2019**, _144_, 6736-6750. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
* [PERSON] et al.