Validation of a DNA methylation reference panel for the estimation of nucleated cells types in cord blood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cord blood is widely used as surrogate tissue in epigenome-wide association studies of prenatal conditions. Cell type composition variation across samples can be an important confounder of epigenome-wide association studies in blood that constitute a mixture of cells. We evaluated a newly developed cord blood reference panel to impute cell type composition from DNA methylation levels, including nucleated red blood cells (nRBCs). We estimated cell type composition from 154 unique cord blood samples with available DNA methylation data as well as direct measurements of nucleated cell types. We observed high correlations between the estimated and measured composition for nRBCs (r = 0.92, R2 = 0.85), lymphocytes (r = 0.77, R2 = 0.58), and granulocytes (r = 0.72, R2 = 0.52), and a moderate correlation for monocytes (r = 0.51, R2 = 0.25) as well as relatively low root mean square errors from the residuals ranging from 1.4 to 5.4%. These results validate the use of the cord blood reference panel and highlight its utility and limitations for epidemiological studies.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".