ArticleCommunications biology2026
Guidelines on optimizing DNA methylation reference panels for cell-type deconvolution.
Article in Communications biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Impact of Nutrition on DNA Methylation: Methodological Challenges in Understanding Cause and Effect.Nutrients · 2026Review
- DNA methylation-based immune cell profiling in mouse blood using MouseRS-CMD.Genome biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate cell-type deconvolution is critical for correct interpretation of Epigenome-Wide Association Studies. For all cell-type deconvolution tasks, it is necessary to estimate underlying cell-type fractions in a sample, which is usually accomplished using a DNA methylation reference panel built from sorted or single-cell DNAm data. Two competing approaches have emerged to build such reference panels, one which uses machine-learning, and another based on optimizing effect size and cell-type specificity. Here we demonstrate that the latter approach is preferable, because, owing to the relatively small number of sorted samples used in building panels, standard machine learning does not optimize effect size and cell-type specificity, causing the model to overfit and underperform when tested in independent data. Furthermore, adult blood panels built from cell-type specific hypomethylated markers improves estimation of cell-type fractions when compared to panels built from hypermethylated ones. These insights provide important guidelines for optimizing the construction of future DNAm reference panels. To aid this task, we have added a function for building an optimized DNAm reference panel to our EpiDISH R-package.
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.