ArticleEvolutionary applications2023
Calibrating epigenetic clocks with training data error.
Article in Evolutionary applications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Methods for analysing wildlife DNA methylation data.Conservation physiology · 2026Article
- Dental Ageing Offers New Insights Into the First Epigenetic Clock for Common Dolphins (Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Dental aging offers new insights to the first epigenetic clock for common dolphins (bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Designing Epigenetic Clocks for Wildlife Research.Molecular ecology resources · 2025Review
- Environmental DNA Epigenetics Accurately Predicts the Age of Cultured Fish Larvae.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Age is not just a number: How incorrect ageing impacts close-kin mark-recapture estimates of population size.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Calibrating epigenetic clocks with training data error.Evolutionary applications · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Animal age data are valuable for management of wildlife populations. Yet, for most species, there is no practical method for determining the age of unknown individuals. However, epigenetic clocks, a molecular-based method, are capable of age prediction by sampling specific tissue types and measuring DNA methylation levels at specific loci. Developing an epigenetic clock requires a large number of samples from animals of known ages. For most species, there are no individuals whose exact ages are known, making epigenetic clock calibration inaccurate or impossible. For many epigenetic clocks, calibration samples with inaccurate age estimates introduce a degree of error to epigenetic clock calibration. In this study, we investigated how much error in the training data set of an epigenetic clock can be tolerated before it resulted in an unacceptable increase in error for age prediction. Using four publicly available data sets, we artificially increased the training data age error by iterations of 1% and then tested the model against an independent set of known ages. A small effect size increase (Cohen's d >0.2) was detected when the error in age was higher than 22%. The effect size increased linearly with age error. This threshold was independent of sample size. Downstream applications for age data may have a more important role in deciding how much error can be tolerated for age prediction. If highly precise age estimates are required, then it may be futile to embark on the development of an epigenetic clock when there is no accurately aged calibration population to work with. However, for other problems, such as determining the relative age order of pairs of individuals, a lower-quality calibration data set may be adequate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.