An integrative framework and recommendations for the study of DNA methylation in the context of race and ethnicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Human social epigenomics research is critical to elucidate the intersection of social and genetic influences underlying racial and ethnic differences in health and development. However, this field faces major challenges in both methodology and interpretation with regard to disentangling confounded social and biological aspects of race and ethnicity. To address these challenges, we discuss how these constructs have been approached in the past and how to move forward in studying DNA methylation (DNAm), one of the best-characterized epigenetic marks in humans, in a responsible and appropriately nuanced manner. We highlight self-reported racial and ethnic identity as the primary measure in this field, and discuss its implications in DNAm research. Racial and ethnic identity reflects the biological embedding of an individual’s sociocultural experience and environmental exposures in combination with the underlying genetic architecture of the human population (i.e., genetic ancestry). Our integrative framework demonstrates how to examine DNAm in the context of race and ethnicity, while considering both intrinsic factors—including genetic ancestry—and extrinsic factors—including structural and sociocultural environment and developmental niches—when focusing on early-life experience. We reviewed DNAm research in relation to health disparities given its relevance to race and ethnicity as social constructs. Here, we provide recommendations for the study of DNAm addressing racial and ethnic differences, such as explicitly acknowledging the self-reported nature of racial and ethnic identity, empirically examining the effects of genetic variants and accounting for genetic ancestry, and investigating race-related and culturally regulated environmental exposures and experiences.
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 | 0.224 | 0.249 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.006 |
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".