Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36280888›Full record

ArticleGenome biology2022

Significant variation in the performance of DNA methylation predictors across data preprocessing and normalization strategies.

Anil P S Ori, Ake T Lu, Steve Horvath, Roel A Ophoff

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Anil P S OriCenter for Neurobehavioral Genetics, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, University of California Los Angeles, 695 Charles E. Young Drive South, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-176, USA. anilori.contact@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-0579-0905
Ake T LuDepartment of Human Genetics, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Steve HorvathDepartment of Human Genetics, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Roel A OphoffCenter for Neurobehavioral Genetics, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, University of California Los Angeles, 695 Charles E. Young Drive South, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-176, USA. ophoff@ucla.edu.

Funding

Validation and optimization of epigenetic clocksU01AG060908 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI RITZ, BEATE R. · 2018 to 2022
$3.4M
NHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201800010INHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201800011CNHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201800011INHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201800012CNHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201800012INHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201800014CNHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201800014INHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201800015INIA NIH HHS U01 AG060908NIMHD NIH HHS HHSN268201800013I
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDNA methylation (DNAm)-based predictors hold great promise to serve as clinical tools for health interventions and disease management. While these algorithms often have high prediction accuracy, the consistency of their performance remains to be determined. We therefore conduct a systematic evaluation across 101 different DNAm data preprocessing and normalization strategies and assess how each analytical strategy affects the consistency of 41 DNAm-based predictors.

resultsOur analyses are conducted in a large EPIC DNAm array dataset from the Jackson Heart Study (N = 2053) that included 146 pairs of technical replicate samples. By estimating the average absolute agreement between replicate pairs, we show that 32 out of 41 predictors (78%) demonstrate excellent consistency when appropriate data processing and normalization steps are implemented. Across all pairs of predictors, we find a moderate correlation in performance across analytical strategies (mean rho = 0.40, SD = 0.27), highlighting significant heterogeneity in performance across algorithms. Successful or unsuccessful removal of technical variation furthermore significantly impacts downstream phenotypic association analysis, such as all-cause mortality risk associations.

conclusionsWe show that DNAm-based algorithms are sensitive to technical variation. The right choice of data processing strategy is important to achieve reproducible estimates and improve prediction accuracy in downstream phenotypic association analyses. For each of the 41 DNAm predictors, we report its degree of consistency and provide the best performing analytical strategy as a guideline for the research community. As DNAm-based predictors become more and more widely used, our work helps improve their performance and standardize their implementation.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationBiomarkersConsistencyDNA methylationDNAm predictorsInfinium MethylationEPIC arrayJackson Heart StudyReplicability

Identifiers

PMID36280888
PMCPMC9590227

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.