MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407400387 · doi:10.1016/j.xpro.2025.103638

Examining cellular heterogeneity in human DNA methylation studies: Overview and recommendations

2025· review· en· W4407400387 on OpenAlexafffund
Maggie P. Fu, Sarah M. Merrill, Keegan Korthauer, Michael S. Kobor

Bibliographic record

VenueSTAR Protocols · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Children's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDNA methylationComputational biologyDNABiologyComputer scienceGeneticsGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intersample cellular heterogeneity (ISCH) is one of the largest contributors to DNA methylation (DNAme) variability. It is imperative to account for ISCH to accurately interpret analysis results in epigenome-wide association studies. We compiled this primer based on the current literature to guide researchers through the process of estimating and accounting for ISCH in DNA methylation studies. This primer outlines the procedure of bioinformatic ISCH prediction, including using reference-based and reference-free algorithms. It then follows with descriptions of several methods to account for ISCH in downstream analyses, including robust linear regression and principal-component-analysis-based adjustments. Finally, we outlined three methods for estimating differential DNAme signals in a cell-type-specific manner. Throughout the primer, we provided statistical and biological justification for our recommendations, as well as R code examples for ease of implementation. Intersample cellular heterogeneity (ISCH) is one of the largest contributors to DNA methylation (DNAme) variability. It is imperative to account for ISCH to accurately interpret analysis results in epigenome-wide association studies. We compiled this primer based on the current literature to guide researchers through the process of estimating and accounting for ISCH in DNA methylation studies. This primer outlines the procedure of bioinformatic ISCH prediction, including using reference-based and reference-free algorithms. It then follows with descriptions of several methods to account for ISCH in downstream analyses, including robust linear regression and principal-component-analysis-based adjustments. Finally, we outlined three methods for estimating differential DNAme signals in a cell-type-specific manner. Throughout the primer, we provided statistical and biological justification for our recommendations, as well as R code examples for ease of implementation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.101
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.258
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1010.258
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.007
Bibliometrics0.0090.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0090.005
Research integrity0.0070.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.014

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.

Opus teacher head0.203
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSTAR ProtocolsSame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207