MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964261691 · doi:10.1080/15592294.2019.1644879

Methodological challenges in constructing DNA methylation risk scores

2019· review· en· W2964261691 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEpigenetics · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsBiologyDNA methylationConfoundingMethylationMediationComputational biologyCpG siteGenome-wide association studyGeneticsBioinformaticsGenotypeSingle-nucleotide polymorphismGeneStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polygenic approaches often access more variance of complex traits than is possible by single variant approaches. For genotype data, genetic risk scores (GRS) are widely used for risk prediction as well as in association and interaction studies. Recently, interest has been growing in transferring GRS approaches to DNA methylation data (methylation risk scores, MRS), which can be used 1) as biomarkers for environmental exposures, 2) in association analyses in which single CpG sites do not achieve significance, 3) as dimension reduction approach in interaction and mediation analyses, and 4) to predict individual risks of disease or treatment success. Most GRS approaches can directly be transferred to methylation data. However, since methylation data is more sensitive to confounding, e.g. by age and tissue, it is more complex to find appropriate external weights. In this review, we will outline the adaption of current GRS approaches to methylation data and highlight occurring challenges.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.335
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.085 · 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