MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890647478 · doi:10.1186/s12919-018-0127-8

CpG-set association assessment of lipid concentration changes and DNA methylation

2018· article· en· W2890647478 on OpenAlexafffund
Kaiqiong Zhao, Lai Jiang, Kathleen Klein, Celia M.T. Greenwood, Karim Oualkacha

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Proceedings · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalJewish General HospitalMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteLudmer Centre for Neuroinformatics and Mental Health
KeywordsCpG siteDNA methylationEpigenomeMethylationEpigeneticsMedicineUnivariateGeneticsComputational biologyGeneBiologyBioinformaticsStatisticsMathematicsGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epigenome association studies that test a large number of methylation sites suffer from stringent multiple-testing corrections. This study’s goals were to investigate region-based associations between DNA methylation sites and lipid-level changes in response to the treatment with fenofibrate in the GAW20 data and to investigate whether improvements in power could be obtained by taking into account correlations between DNA methylation at neighboring cytosine-phosphate-guanine (CpG) sites. To this end, we applied both a recently developed block-based data-dimension-reduction approach and a region-based variance-component (VC) linear mixed model to GAW20 data. We compared analyses of unrelated individuals with familial data. The region-based VC approach using unrelated (independent) individuals identified the gene LGALS9C as significantly associated with changes in triglycerides. However, univariate tests of individual CpG sites yielded no valid statistically significant results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC ProceedingsSame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207