Pruning and thresholding approach for methylation risk scores in multi-ancestry populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent efforts have focused on developing methylation risk scores (MRS), a weighted sum of the individual’s DNA methylation (DNAm) values of pre-selected CpG sites. Most of the current MRS approaches that utilize Epigenome-wide association studies (EWAS) summary statistics only include genome-wide significant CpG sites and do not consider co-methylation. New methods that relax the p-value threshold to include more CpG sites and account for the inter-correlation of DNAm might improve the predictive performance of MRS. We paired informed co-methylation pruning with P-value thresholding to generate pruning and thresholding (P+T) MRS and evaluated its performance among multi-ancestry populations. Through simulation studies and real data analyses, we demonstrated that pruning provides an improvement over simple thresholding methods for prediction of phenotypes. We demonstrated that European-derived summary statistics can be used to develop P+T MRS among other populations such as African populations. However, the prediction accuracy of P+T MRS may differ across multi-ancestry population due to environmental/cultural/social differences.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".