MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134842602 · doi:10.2217/epi-2020-0344

Detecting Differentially Methylated Regions with Multiple Distinct Associations

2021· article· en· W3134842602 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEpigenomics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-JeanCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of Nursing ResearchNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéDiabète QuébecNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of General Medical SciencesAmerican Diabetes Association
KeywordsBiologyCpG siteType I and type II errorsStatistical powerComputational biologyDifferentially methylated regionsDNA methylationStatisticsBioinformaticsGeneticsComputer scienceEvolutionary biologyGeneMathematicsGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: We evaluated five methods for detecting differentially methylated regions (DMRs): DMRcate, comb-p, seqlm, GlobalP and dmrff. Materials & methods: We used a simulation study and real data analysis to evaluate performance. Additionally, we evaluated the use of an ancestry-matched reference cohort to estimate correlations between CpG sites in cord blood. Results: Several methods had inflated Type I error, which increased at more stringent significant levels. In power simulations with 1–2 causal CpG sites with the same direction of effect, dmrff was consistently among the most powerful methods. Conclusion: This study illustrates the need for more thorough simulation studies when evaluating novel methods. More work must be done to develop methods with well-controlled Type I error that do not require individual-level data.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.228 · 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