Harnessing Omics Sciences, Population Databases, and Open Innovation Models for Theranostics‐Guided Drug Discovery and Development
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Preclinical Research Omics science‐driven population databases and biobanks help in enabling robust, large‐scale, high‐throughput biomarker discovery and validation. As targeted drug therapies will require the development of companion diagnostic tests to identify patients most suitable for a given drug therapy, databases and biobanks represent one of the optimal and rapidly emerging ways to enable personalized medicine with reduced development timelines. Moreover, data‐intensive omics technologies represent a new dual reconfiguration of 21st‐century science whereby communitarian value‐driven “infrastructure science” and individual entrepreneurship‐driven “discovery science” now coexist. In the hope of overcoming the “transfer problem” in omics research that continues to hinder the full realization of concrete applications for human health, biobanks and databases are increasingly harnessing various open innovation models, such as open access, open source, expert sourcing, and patent pools. These models appear at various stages (drug repurposing, upstream, and downstream) of the research and development ( R&D ) process. While laudable, their inclusion will likely spur a variety of ethical, legal, and social issues ( ELSI ), including those revolving around consent, privacy, and property. By collectively anticipating and analyzing these issues, tensions among these innovation models and extant laws and policies regulating biomedical research and therapeutics based on the classical discovery science model can be resolved. This article does not posit which models will work best to achieve drug discovery and development breakthroughs, but rather, advocates for evidence‐based analyses that couple technical and economic data with global ELSI research to foster a more nuanced, contextualized, and thorough understanding of the new dual configuration of postgenomics pharmaceutical R&D .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it