Enrichment methods provide a feasible approach to comprehensive and adequately powered investigations of the brain methylome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methylome-wide association studies are typically performed using microarray technologies that only assay a very small fraction of the CG methylome and entirely miss two forms of methylation that are common in brain and likely of particular relevance for neuroscience and psychiatric disorders. The alternative is to use whole genome bisulfite (WGB) sequencing but this approach is not yet practically feasible with sample sizes required for adequate statistical power. We argue for revisiting methylation enrichment methods that, provided optimal protocols are used, enable comprehensive, adequately powered and cost-effective genome-wide investigations of the brain methylome. To support our claim we use data showing that enrichment methods approximate the sensitivity obtained with WGB methods and with slightly better specificity. However, this performance is achieved at <5% of the reagent costs. Furthermore, because many more samples can be sequenced simultaneously, projects can be completed about 15 times faster. Currently the only viable option available for comprehensive brain methylome studies, enrichment methods may be critical for moving the field forward.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".