Disease–drug database for pharmacogenomic‐based prescribing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Providers have expressed a strong desire to have additional clinical decision-support tools to help with interpretation of pharmacogenomic results. We developed and tested a novel disease-drug association tool that enables pharmacogenomic-based prescribing to treat common diseases. First, 324 drugs were mapped to 484 distinct diseases (mean number of drugs treating each disease was 4.9; range 1-37). Then the disease-drug association tool was pharmacogenomically annotated, with an average of 1.8 pharmacogenomically annotated drugs associated/disease. Applying this tool to a prospectively enrolled >1,000 patient cohort from a tertiary medical center showed that 90% of the top ∼20 diseases in this population and ≥93% of patients could appropriately be treated with ≥1 medication with actionable pharmacogenomic information. When combined with clinical patient genotypes, this tool permits delivery of patient-specific pharmacogenomically informed disease treatment recommendations to inform the treatment of many medical conditions of the US population, a key initial step towards implementation of precision medicine.
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 | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.017 |
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".