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
Genomics has made enormous progress in the twelve years since the publication of the first draft human genome sequence, but it has not yet been translated into the clinic. Despite spiralling development costs, the number of new drug registrations is not increasing. One reason for this lies in the genetic complexity of disease. Most diseases involve dysregulation in pathways that involve many genes, and many (including most cancers) are themselves genetically heterogeneous. Systems biology involves the multi-level simulation of physiology, cell biology and biochemistry using complex computational techniques. We show here using case studies in cancer and HIV how such computational models, and particularly models based on individual patient data, can be used for drug design and development, and in the selection of the appropriate treatment for a given patient in the face of resistance mutations. If these techniques are to be adopted in routine clinical practice, clinicians will need better training in modern approaches to the integrated analysis of large-scale heterogeneous data and multi-scale models, while developers will need to provide much more usable tools. Investment in computational infrastructure is needed so that results can be returned on clinically relevant timescales and data warehouses designed with data protection as well as accessibility in mind.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 it