Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37889307›Full record

ArticleHuman genetics2023

Comprehensive evaluation of the implementation of episignatures for diagnosis of neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs).

Edoardo Giuili, Robin Grolaux, Catarina Z N M Macedo, Laurence Desmyter, Bruno Pichon, Sebastian Neuens, Catheline Vilain, Catharina Olsen, Sonia Van Dooren, Guillaume Smits and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Expanding Upon Genomics in Rare Diseases: Epigenomic Insights.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  7. 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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Edoardo Giuili *Interuniversity Institute of Bioinformatics in Brussels, Université Libre de Bruxelles-Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Robin Grolaux *Interuniversity Institute of Bioinformatics in Brussels, Université Libre de Bruxelles-Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Catarina Z N M MacedoInteruniversity Institute of Bioinformatics in Brussels, Université Libre de Bruxelles-Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Laurence DesmyterCenter for Human Genetics, Hôpital Erasme, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Bruno PichonCenter for Human Genetics, Hôpital Erasme, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Sebastian NeuensCenter for Human Genetics, Hôpital Erasme, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Catheline VilainCenter for Human Genetics, Hôpital Erasme, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Catharina OlsenInteruniversity Institute of Bioinformatics in Brussels, Université Libre de Bruxelles-Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Sonia Van DoorenInteruniversity Institute of Bioinformatics in Brussels, Université Libre de Bruxelles-Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Guillaume SmitsInteruniversity Institute of Bioinformatics in Brussels, Université Libre de Bruxelles-Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Matthieu DefranceInteruniversity Institute of Bioinformatics in Brussels, Université Libre de Bruxelles-Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium. matthieu.defrance@ulb.be.
Université Libre de Bruxelles · BEErasmus Hospital · BEQueen Fabiola Children's University Hospital · BEUniversitair Ziekenhuis Brussel · BEVrije Universiteit Brussel · BE

Funding

Fonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRS 1.E.013.20FInnoviris Foundation PFS-11e IgenCare
6 · The paper itself

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

Neurodevelopmental DisordersSotos SyndromeDNA MethylationHumans

Identifiers

PMID37889307
PMCPMC10676303
OpenAlexW4387965250

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.