ArticleHuman genetics2023
Comprehensive evaluation of the implementation of episignatures for diagnosis of neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs).
Article in Human genetics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Paediatric DNA methylation profile scores: a systematic review and open-source atlas.EBioMedicine · 2026Pooled it
- Sex-specific nonlinear DNA methylation aging trajectories reveal biomarkers of cancer risk and inflammation.Genome biology · 2026Article
- Analysis Methods for Diagnosing Rare Neurodevelopmental Diseases with Episignatures: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- DNAm age differences between infinium methylationEPICv1 vs EPICv2 in buffy coat, PBMC, and saliva samples.Communications biology · 2025Article
- Clinical evaluation of long-read sequencing-based episignature detection in developmental disorders.Genome medicine · 2025Article
- Expanding Upon Genomics in Rare Diseases: Epigenomic Insights.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- DNA methylation profiling in Kabuki syndrome: reclassification of germline KMT2D VUS and sensitivity in validating postzygotic mosaicism.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Episignatures are popular tools for the diagnosis of rare neurodevelopmental disorders. They are commonly based on a set of differentially methylated CpGs used in combination with a support vector machine model. DNA methylation (DNAm) data often include missing values due to changes in data generation technology and batch effects. While many normalization methods exist for DNAm data, their impact on episignature performance have never been assessed. In addition, technologies to quantify DNAm evolve quickly and this may lead to poor transposition of existing episignatures generated on deprecated array versions to new ones. Indeed, probe removal between array versions, technologies or during preprocessing leads to missing values. Thus, the effect of missing data on episignature performance must also be carefully evaluated and addressed through imputation or an innovative approach to episignatures design. In this paper, we used data from patients suffering from Kabuki and Sotos syndrome to evaluate the influence of normalization methods, classification models and missing data on the prediction performances of two existing episignatures. We compare how six popular normalization methods for methylarray data affect episignature classification performances in Kabuki and Sotos syndromes and provide best practice suggestions when building new episignatures. In this setting, we show that Illumina, Noob or Funnorm normalization methods achieved higher classification performances on the testing sets compared to Quantile, Raw and Swan normalization methods. We further show that penalized logistic regression and support vector machines perform best in the classification of Kabuki and Sotos syndrome patients. Then, we describe a new paradigm to build episignatures based on the detection of differentially methylated regions (DMRs) and evaluate their performance compared to classical differentially methylated cytosines (DMCs)-based episignatures in the presence of missing data. We show that the performance of classical DMC-based episignatures suffers from the presence of missing data more than the DMR-based approach. We present a comprehensive evaluation of how the normalization of DNA methylation data affects episignature performance, using three popular classification models. We further evaluate how missing data affect those models' predictions. Finally, we propose a novel methodology to develop episignatures based on differentially methylated regions identification and show how this method slightly outperforms classical episignatures in the presence of missing data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.