Identifying aberrant pathways through integrated analysis of knowledge in pharmacogenomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Many complex diseases are the result of abnormal pathway functions instead of single abnormalities. Disease diagnosis and intervention strategies must target these pathways while minimizing the interference with normal physiological processes. Large-scale identification of disease pathways and chemicals that may be used to perturb them requires the integration of information about drugs, genes, diseases and pathways. This information is currently distributed over several pharmacogenomics databases. An integrated analysis of the information in these databases can reveal disease pathways and facilitate novel biomedical analyses. RESULTS: We demonstrate how to integrate pharmacogenomics databases through integration of the biomedical ontologies that are used as meta-data in these databases. The additional background knowledge in these ontologies can then be used to enable novel analyses. We identify disease pathways using a novel multi-ontology enrichment analysis over the Human Disease Ontology, and we identify significant associations between chemicals and pathways using an enrichment analysis over a chemical ontology. The drug-pathway and disease-pathway associations are a valuable resource for research in disease and drug mechanisms and can be used to improve computational drug repurposing. AVAILABILITY: http://pharmgkb-owl.googlecode.com
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".