Locus-specific DNA methylation prediction in cord blood and placenta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DNA methylation is known to be responsive to prenatal exposures, which may be a part of the mechanism linking early developmental exposures to future chronic diseases. Many studies use blood to measure DNA methylation, yet we know that DNA methylation is tissue specific. Placenta is central to fetal growth and development, but it is rarely feasible to collect this tissue in large epidemiological studies; on the other hand, cord blood samples are more accessible. In this study, based on paired samples of both placenta and cord blood tissues from 169 individuals, we investigated the methylation concordance between placenta and cord blood. We then employed a machine-learning-based model to predict locus-specific DNA methylation levels in placenta using DNA methylation levels in cord blood. We found that methylation correlation between placenta and cord blood is lower than other tissue pairs, consistent with existing observations that placenta methylation has a distinct pattern. Nonetheless, there are still a number of CpG sites showing robust association between the two tissues. We built prediction models for placenta methylation based on cord blood data and documented a subset of 1,012 CpG sites with high correlation between measured and predicted placenta methylation levels. The resulting list of CpG sites and prediction models could help to reveal the loci where internal or external influences may affect DNA methylation in both placenta and cord blood, and provide a reference data to predict the effects on placenta in future study even when the tissue is not available in an epidemiological study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".