eFORGE: A Tool for Identifying Cell Type-Specific Signal in Epigenomic Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epigenome-wide association studies (EWAS) provide an alternative approach for studying human disease through consideration of non-genetic variants such as altered DNA methylation. To advance the complex interpretation of EWAS, we developed eFORGE (http://eforge.cs.ucl.ac.uk/), a new standalone and web-based tool for the analysis and interpretation of EWAS data. eFORGE determines the cell type-specific regulatory component of a set of EWAS-identified differentially methylated positions. This is achieved by detecting enrichment of overlap with DNase I hypersensitive sites across 454 samples (tissues, primary cell types, and cell lines) from the ENCODE, Roadmap Epigenomics, and BLUEPRINT projects. Application of eFORGE to 20 publicly available EWAS datasets identified disease-relevant cell types for several common diseases, a stem cell-like signature in cancer, and demonstrated the ability to detect cell-composition effects for EWAS performed on heterogeneous tissues. Our approach bridges the gap between large-scale epigenomics data and EWAS-derived target selection to yield insight into disease etiology.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.011 |
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".