Systematic evaluation and validation of reference and library selection methods for deconvolution of cord blood DNA methylation data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Umbilical cord blood (UCB) is commonly used in epigenome-wide association studies of prenatal exposures. Accounting for cell type composition is critical in such studies as it reduces confounding due to the cell specificity of DNA methylation (DNAm). In the absence of cell sorting information, statistical methods can be applied to deconvolve heterogeneous cell mixtures. Among these methods, reference-based approaches leverage age appropriate cell-specific DNA-methylation profiles to estimate cellular composition. In UCB, four reference datasets comprising DNAm signatures profiled in purified cell populations have been published using the Illumina 450K and 850K EPIC arrays. These datasets are biologically and technically different, and currently there is no consensus on how to best apply them. Here, we systematically evaluate and compare these datasets and provide recommendations for reference-based UCB deconvolution. Results We first evaluated the four reference datasets to ascertain both the purity of the samples and the potential cell cross-contamination. We filtered samples and combined datasets to obtain a joint UCB reference. We selected deconvolution libraries using two different approaches: automatic selection using the top differentially methylated probes from the function pickCompProbes in minfi and a standardized library selected using the IDOL (Identifying Optimal Libraries) iterative algorithm. We compared the performance of each reference separately and in combination, using the two approaches for reference library selection, and validated the results in an independent cohort (Generation R Study, n=191) with matched FACS measured cell counts. Strict filtering and combination of the references significantly improved the accuracy and efficiency of cell type estimates. Ultimately, the IDOL library outperformed the library from the automatic selection method implemented in pickCompProbes . Conclusion These results have important implications for epigenetic studies in UCB as implementing this method will optimally reduce confounding due to cellular heterogeneity. This work provides guidelines for future reference-based UCB deconvolution and establishes a framework for combining reference datasets in other tissues.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".