MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307580626 · doi:10.1007/s00018-022-04568-9

Distinctive aspects of the placental epigenome and theories as to how they arise

2022· review· en· W4307580626 on OpenAlexafffund
William A. Pastor, Sin Young Kwon

Bibliographic record

VenueCellular and Molecular Life Sciences · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of California, San FranciscoMcGill University
KeywordsEpigenomePlacentationDNA methylationBiologyEpigeneticsEpigenesisPlacentaGenomic imprintingSomatic cellCpG siteMethylationEpigenomicsCytotrophoblastGeneticsEvolutionary biologyGeneGene expressionFetusPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The placenta has a methylome dramatically unlike that of any somatic cell type. Among other distinctions, it features low global DNA methylation, extensive "partially methylated domains" packed in dense heterochromatin and methylation of hundreds of CpG islands important in somatic development. These features attract interest in part because a substantial fraction of human cancers feature the exact same phenomena, suggesting parallels between epigenome formation in placentation and cancer. Placenta also features an expanded set of imprinted genes, some of which come about by distinctive developmental pathways. Recent discoveries, some from far outside the placental field, shed new light on how the unusual placental epigenetic state may arise. Nonetheless, key questions remain unresolved.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCellular and Molecular Life SciencesSame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207