Novel diagnostic DNA methylation episignatures expand and refine the epigenetic landscapes of Mendelian disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Overlapping clinical phenotypes and an expanding breadth and complexity of genomic associations are a growing challenge in the diagnosis and clinical management of Mendelian disorders. The functional consequences and clinical impacts of genomic variation may involve unique, disorder-specific, genomic DNA methylation episignatures. In this study, we describe 19 novel episignature disorders and compare the findings alongside 38 previously established episignatures for a total of 57 episignatures associated with 65 genetic syndromes. We demonstrate increasing resolution and specificity ranging from protein complex, gene, sub-gene, protein domain, and even single nucleotide-level Mendelian episignatures. We show the power of multiclass modeling to develop highly accurate and disease-specific diagnostic classifiers. This study significantly expands the number and spectrum of disorders with detectable DNA methylation episignatures, improves the clinical diagnostic capabilities through the resolution of unsolved cases and the reclassification of variants of unknown clinical significance, and provides further insight into the molecular etiology of Mendelian conditions.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".