A systems biology network model for genetic association studies of nicotine addiction and treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Interpreting genome-scale genetic association data, particularly for complex diseases and phenotypes, requires extensive use of prior knowledge across a broad range of potential biological and environmental influences, spanning many scientific subdisciplines. We suggest that known or hypothesized disease risk factors, and causal mechanisms, can be represented using an ontology, a computational specification of a set of concepts and the relations between them. METHODS: We have integrated the expertise of multiple investigators in nicotine pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, nicotine dependence, and clinical smoking cessation outcomes, and represented this knowledge in an ontology-based network model. Our model spans multiple scales, from molecules, genes and cellular pathways, to complex behavioral phenotypes and even environmental factors. To leverage previous and ongoing work in the field of ontology development, we adopt, expand upon and relate elements from existing ontologies whenever possible. RESULTS: We discuss several applications of our ontology: to support interdisciplinary research by graphically representing a complex scientific theory, to facilitate meta-analysis across different studies, to highlight potential interactions, and to support statistical analysis and causal modeling. We demonstrate that our ontology can focus hypothesis testing on areas supported by current theory. CONCLUSION: We describe how an ontology-based computational representation can be applied to disease risk factors and mechanisms, enabling the use of prior knowledge in large-scale genetic association studies in general. In specific, we have developed an initial Smoking Behavior Risk Ontology to support studies related to the pharmacogenetics of nicotine addiction and treatment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".