Improved reporting of DNA methylation data derived from studies of the human placenta
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epigenetic variation is increasingly hypothesized as a mechanism underlying the effect of the in utero environment on long-term postnatal health; however, there is currently little clear data to support this in humans. A number of biological and technical factors provide challenges for the design of clinical epigenetic studies: from the type of cells or tissues that are available to the large range of predicted confounders that may impact findings. The human placenta, in addition to other neonatal tissues and whole blood, is commonly sampled for the study of epigenetic modifications. However there is little conformity for the most appropriate methods for study design, data analysis, and importantly, data interpretation. Here we present general recommendations for the reporting of DNA methylation in biological samples, with specific focus on the placenta. We outline key guidelines for: (1) placental sampling, (2) data analysis and presentation, and (3) interpretation of DNA methylation data. We emphasize the need to consider methodological noise, increase statistical power and to ensure appropriate adjustment for biological covariates. Finally, we highlight that epigenetic changes may be non-pathological and not necessarily translate into disease-associated changes. Improved reporting of DNA methylation data will be critical to identify epigenetic-based effects and to better understand the full phenotypic impact of these widely-reported epigenomic changes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it