HBCR_DMR: A Hybrid Method Based on Beta-Binomial Bayesian Hierarchical Model and Combination of Ranking Method to Detect Differential Methylation Regions in Bisulfite Sequencing Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DNA methylation is a key epigenetic modification involved in gene regulation, contributing to both physiological and pathological conditions. For a more profound comprehension, it is essential to conduct a precise comparison of DNA methylation patterns between sample groups that represent distinct statuses. Analysis of differentially methylated regions (DMRs) using computational approaches can help uncover the precise relationships between these phenomena. This paper describes a hybrid model that combines the beta-binomial Bayesian hierarchical model with a combination of ranking methods known as HBCR_DMR. During the initial phase, we model the actual methylation proportions of the CpG sites (CpGs) within the replicates. This modeling is achieved through beta-binomial distribution, with parameters set by a group mean and a dispersion parameter. During the second stage, we establish the selection of distinguishing CpG sites based on their methylation status, employing multiple ranking techniques. Finally, we combine the ranking lists of differentially methylated CpG sites through a voting system. Our analyses, encompassing simulations and real data, reveal outstanding performance metrics, including a sensitivity of 0.72, specificity of 0.89, and an F1 score of 0.76, yielding an overall accuracy of 0.82 and an AUC of 0.94. These findings underscore HBCR_DMR's robust capacity to distinguish methylated regions, confirming its utility as a valuable tool for DNA methylation analysis.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".