Identifying Differential Methylation in Cancer Epigenetics via a Bayesian Functional Regression Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DNA methylation plays an essential role in regulating gene activity, modulating disease risk, and determining treatment response. We can obtain insight into methylation patterns at a single-nucleotide level via next-generation sequencing technologies. However, complex features inherent in the data obtained via these technologies pose challenges beyond the typical big data problems. Identifying differentially methylated cytosines (dmc) or regions is one such challenge. We have developed DMCFB, an efficient dmc identification method based on Bayesian functional regression, to tackle these challenges. Using simulations, we establish that DMCFB outperforms current methods and results in better smoothing and efficient imputation. We analyzed a dataset of patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia and control samples. With DMCFB, we discovered many new dmcs and, more importantly, exhibited enhanced consistency of differential methylation within islands and their adjacent shores. Additionally, we detected differential methylation at more of the binding sites of the fused gene involved in this cancer.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".