Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37127563›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2023

A comparison of feature selection methodologies and learning algorithms in the development of a DNA methylation-based telomere length estimator.

Trevor Doherty, Emma Dempster, Eilis Hannon, Jonathan Mill, Richie Poulton, David Corcoran, Karen Sugden, Ben Williams, Avshalom Caspi, Terrie E Moffitt and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

12 authors.

Trevor DohertySchool of Biological, Health and Sports Sciences, Technological University Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. trevor.c.doherty@mytudublin.ie.
Emma DempsterUniversity of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Eilis HannonUniversity of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Jonathan MillUniversity of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Richie PoultonDepartment of Psychology, University of Otago, Dunedin, 9016, New Zealand.
David CorcoranCenter for Genomic and Computational Biology, Duke University, Durham, NC, 27708, USA.
Karen SugdenDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Ben WilliamsDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Avshalom CaspiSocial, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Terrie E MoffittSocial, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Sarah Jane Delany *School of Computer Science, Technological University Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Therese M Murphy *School of Biological, Health and Sports Sciences, Technological University Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/M008924/1Science Foundation Ireland 18/CRT/6183
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe field of epigenomics holds great promise in understanding and treating disease with advances in machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence being vitally important in this pursuit. Increasingly, research now utilises DNA methylation measures at cytosine-guanine dinucleotides (CpG) to detect disease and estimate biological traits such as aging. Given the challenge of high dimensionality of DNA methylation data, feature-selection techniques are commonly employed to reduce dimensionality and identify the most important subset of features. In this study, our aim was to test and compare a range of feature-selection methods and ML algorithms in the development of a novel DNA methylation-based telomere length (TL) estimator. We utilised both nested cross-validation and two independent test sets for the comparisons.

resultsWe found that principal component analysis in advance of elastic net regression led to the overall best performing estimator when evaluated using a nested cross-validation analysis and two independent test cohorts. This approach achieved a correlation between estimated and actual TL of 0.295 (83.4% CI [0.201, 0.384]) on the EXTEND test data set. Contrastingly, the baseline model of elastic net regression with no prior feature reduction stage performed less well in general-suggesting a prior feature-selection stage may have important utility. A previously developed TL estimator, DNAmTL, achieved a correlation of 0.216 (83.4% CI [0.118, 0.310]) on the EXTEND data. Additionally, we observed that different DNA methylation-based TL estimators, which have few common CpGs, are associated with many of the same biological entities.

conclusionsThe variance in performance across tested approaches shows that estimators are sensitive to data set heterogeneity and the development of an optimal DNA methylation-based estimator should benefit from the robust methodological approach used in this study. Moreover, our methodology which utilises a range of feature-selection approaches and ML algorithms could be applied to other biological markers and disease phenotypes, to examine their relationship with DNA methylation and predictive value.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationEpigenomicsTelomere HomeostasisAlgorithmsHumansMachine LearningRegression AnalysisAgingDNA MethylationFeature ReductionFeature SelectionMachine LearningTelomere Length

Identifiers

PMID37127563
PMCPMC10152624

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.