MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2432987008 · doi:10.1186/s13054-016-1374-6

Genomics and pharmacogenomics of sepsis: so close and yet so far

2016· letter· en· W2432987008 on OpenAlexaff
James A. Russell

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacogenomicsMedicineSepsisIntensive care medicinePharmacogeneticsBiomarkerBioinformaticsProcalcitoninPrecision medicinePharmacologyInternal medicineGeneBiologyGeneticsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sapru et al. show in this issue of Critical Care that variants of thrombomodulin and the endothelial protein C receptor, but not protein C, are associated with mortality and organ dysfunction (ventilation-free and organ failure-free days) in ARDS. Hundreds of gene variants have been found prognostic in sepsis. However, none of these prognostic genomic biomarkers are used clinically. Predictive biomarker discovery (pharmacogenomics) usually follows a candidate gene approach, utilizing knowledge of drug pathways. Pharmacogenomics could be applied to enhance efficacy and safety of drugs used for treatment of sepsis (e.g., norepinephrine, epinephrine, vasopressin, and corticosteroids). Pharmacogenomics can enhance drug development in sepsis, which is very important because there is no approved drug for sepsis. Pharmacogenomics biomarkers must pass three milestones: scientific, regulatory, and commercial. Huge challenges remain but great opportunities for pharmacogenomics of sepsis are on the horizon.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.009
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0260.035
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical CareSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207