Pharmacogenomics in Pediatric Patients: Towards Personalized Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well known that drug responses differ among patients with regard to dose requirements, efficacy, and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The differences in drug responses are partially explained by genetic variation. This paper highlights some examples of areas in which the different responses (dose, efficacy, and ADRs) are studied in children, including cancer (cisplatin), thrombosis (vitamin K antagonists), and asthma (long-acting β2 agonists). For childhood cancer, the replication of data is challenging due to a high heterogeneity in study populations, which is mostly due to all the different treatment protocols. For example, the replication cohorts of the association of variants in TPMT and COMT with cisplatin-induced ototoxicity gave conflicting results, possibly as a result of this heterogeneity. For the vitamin K antagonists, the evidence of the association between variants in VKORC1 and CYP2C9 and the dose is clear. Genetic dosing models have been developed, but the implementation is held back by the impossibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial with such a small and diverse population. For the long-acting β2 agonists, there is enough evidence for the association between variant ADRB2 Arg16 and treatment response to start clinical trials to assess clinical value and cost effectiveness of genotyping. However, further research is still needed to define the different asthma phenotypes to study associations in comparable cohorts. These examples show the challenges which are encountered in pediatric pharmacogenomic studies. They also display the importance of collaborations to obtain good quality evidence for the implementation of genetic testing in clinical practice to optimize and personalize 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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".