ReviewHeredity2026
A comprehensive evaluation of computational models for identifying methylation variability in DNA methylation arrays.
Review in Heredity, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
DNA methylation (DNAm) is a key epigenetic modification that regulates gene expression and is involved in biological processes such as development, disease progression, and responses to environmental factors. While differential methylation analysis, which focuses on average methylation differences, is widely used in epigenome-wide association studies, variable methylation (VM) analysis is gaining recognition for its ability to uncover dynamic molecular processes underlying various phenotypic outcomes. VM analysis, which focuses on variability in methylation patterns, is particularly valuable for detecting subtle epigenetic changes that may signal early disease stages or complex mechanisms, such as those observed in cancer, where these changes reflect shifts in gene regulation that may not be captured by average methylation levels. Computational tools for VM analysis utilize a variety of approaches, broadly categorized into feature selection-based, joint location-scale test, and variance-based methods, making tool selection challenging. In this study, we conducted a comprehensive evaluation of eight tools that can be used for VM analysis to provide empirical evidence and guidance for researchers in choosing most appropriate tool. Using extensive simulations, we assessed performance of these tools based on various simulation scenarios and evaluations metrics. Our findings indicate that most tools controlled false discovery rate well, except for DiffVar in certain scenarios. All tools had limited power under a small sample size and moderate effect size setup which changed as both sample and effect sizes increased. Across all simulation scenarios and evaluation metrics, JLSsc demonstrated favorable performance as compared to other models in identifying VM in DNAm microarray data.
Identifiers
42919922What 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.