MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970502399 · doi:10.1186/s13148-019-0717-y

Systematic evaluation and validation of reference and library selection methods for deconvolution of cord blood DNA methylation data

2019· article· en· W2970502399 on OpenAlexaff
Kristina Gervin, Lucas A. Salas, Kelly M. Bakulski, Menno C. van Zelm, Devin C. Koestler, John K. Wiencke, Liesbeth Duijts, Henriëtte A. Moll, Karl T. Kelsey, Michael S. Kobor, Robert Lyle, Brock C. Christensen, Janine F. Felix, Meaghan J. Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Epigenetics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaChildren's Hospital Research Institute of ManitobaBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersH2020 European Research CouncilNational Institute on Minority Health and Health DisparitiesNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institute on AgingNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthErasmus Medisch CentrumJoint Programming Initiative A healthy diet for a healthy lifeErasmus Universiteit RotterdamZonMw
KeywordsdNaMDeconvolutionDNA methylationComputer scienceLeverage (statistics)Computational biologyData miningBiologyAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 DNAm profiles to estimate cellular composition. In UCB, four reference datasets comprising DNAm signatures profiled in purified cell populations have been published using the Illumina 450 K and 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 Fluorescence-Activated Cell Sorting 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.112
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.172
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.594

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1120.172
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations234
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical EpigeneticsSame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207