Reliability and correlation of mixture cell correction in methylomic and transcriptomic blood data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The number of DNA methylome and RNA transcriptome studies is growing, but investigators have to consider the cell type composition of tissues used. In blood samples, the data reflect the picture of a mixture of different cells. Specialized algorithms can address the cell-type heterogeneity issue. We tested if these corrections are correlated between two heterogeneous datasets. RESULTS: We used methylome and transcriptome datasets derived from a cohort of ten individuals whose blood was sampled at two different timepoints. We examined how the cell composition derived from these omics correlated with each other using "CIBERSORT" for the transcriptome and "estimateCellCounts function" in R for the methylome. The correlation coefficients between the two omic datasets ranged from 0.45 to 0.81 but correlations were minimal between two different timepoints. Our results suggest that a posteriori correction of a mixture of cells present in blood samples is reliable. Using an omic dataset to correct a second dataset for relative fractions of cells appears to be applicable, but only when the samples are simultaneously collected. This could be beneficial when there are difficulties to control the cell types in the second dataset, even when the sample size is limited.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.059 | 0.165 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".