Capturing functional epigenomes for insight into metabolic diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Metabolic diseases such as obesity are known to be driven by both environmental and genetic factors. Although genome-wide association studies of common variants and their impact on complex traits have provided some biological insight into disease etiology, identified genetic variants have been found to contribute only a small proportion to disease heritability, and to map mainly to non-coding regions of the genome. To link variants to function, association studies of cellular traits, such as epigenetic marks, in disease-relevant tissues are commonly applied. SCOPE OF THE REVIEW: We review large-scale efforts to generate genome-wide maps of coordinated epigenetic marks and their utility in complex disease dissection with a focus on DNA methylation. We contrast DNA methylation profiling methods and discuss the advantages of using targeted methods for single-base resolution assessments of methylation levels across tissue-specific regulatory regions to deepen our understanding of contributing factors leading to complex diseases. MAJOR CONCLUSIONS: Large-scale assessments of DNA methylation patterns in metabolic disease-linked study cohorts have provided insight into the impact of variable epigenetic variants in disease etiology. In-depth profiling of epigenetic marks at regulatory regions, particularly at tissue-specific elements, will be key to dissect the genetic and environmental components contributing to metabolic disease onset and progression.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".