Gene Expression Profiling and its Practice in Drug Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The availability of sequenced genomes of human and many experimental animals necessitated the development of new technologies and powerful computational tools that are capable of exploiting these genomic data and ask intriguing questions about complex nature of biological processes. This gave impetus for developing whole genome approaches that can produce functional information of genes in the form of expression profiles and unscramble the relationships between variation in gene expression and the resulting physiological outcome. These profiles represent genetic fingerprints or catalogue of genes that characterize the cell or tissue being studied and provide a basis from which to begin an investigation of the underlying biology. Among the most powerful and versatile tools are high-density DNA microarrays to analyze the expression patterns of large numbers of genes across different tissues or within the same tissue under a variety of experimental conditions or even between species. The wide spread use of microarray technologies is generating large sets of data that is stimulating the development of better analytical tools so that functions can be predicted for novel genes. In this review, the authors discuss how these profiles are being used at various stages of the drug discovery process and help in the identification of new drug targets, predict the function of novel genes, and understand individual variability in response to drugs.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".