<i>E</i> -value: a superior alternative to <i>P</i> -value and its adjustments in DNA methylation studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DNA methylation plays a crucial role in transcriptional regulation. Reduced representation bisulfite sequencing (RRBS) is a technique of increasing use for analyzing genome-wide methylation profiles. Many computational tools such as Metilene, MethylKit, BiSeq and DMRfinder have been developed to use RRBS data for the detection of the differentially methylated regions (DMRs) potentially involved in epigenetic regulations of gene expression. For DMR detection tools, as for countless other medical applications, P-values and their adjustments are among the most standard reporting statistics used to assess the statistical significance of biological findings. However, P-values are coming under increasing criticism relating to their questionable accuracy and relatively high levels of false positive or negative indications. Here, we propose a method to calculate E-values, as likelihood ratios falling into the null hypothesis over the entire parameter space, for DMR detection in RRBS data. We also provide the R package 'metevalue' as a user-friendly interface to implement E-value calculations into various DMR detection tools. To evaluate the performance of E-values, we generated various RRBS benchmarking datasets using our simulator 'RRBSsim' with eight samples in each experimental group. Our comprehensive benchmarking analyses showed that using E-values not only significantly improved accuracy, area under ROC curve and power, over that of P-values or adjusted P-values, but also reduced false discovery rates and type I errors. In applications using real RRBS data of CRL rats and a clinical trial on low-salt diet, the use of E-values detected biologically more relevant DMRs and also improved the negative association between DNA methylation and gene expression.
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 | 0.034 | 0.166 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
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".