A systems-level analysis of drug–target–disease associations for drug repositioning
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
Drug repositioning is the process of finding new therapeutic uses for existing, approved drugs-a process thathas value when considering the exorbitant costs of novel drug development. Several computational strategies exist as a way to predict these alternative applications. In this study, we used datasets on: (1) human biological drug targets and (2) disease-associated genes and, based on a direct functional interaction between them, searched for potential opportunities for drug repositioning. From the set of 1125 unique drug targets and their 88 490 interactions with disease-associated genes, 30 drug targets were analyzed and (3) discussed in detail for the purpose of this article. The current indications of the drugs thattarget them were validated through the interactions, and new opportunities for repositioning were predicted. Among the set of drugs for potential repositioning werebenzodiazepines for the treatment of autism spectrum disorders; nortriptyline for the treatment of melanoma, glioma and other cancers; and vitamin B6 in prevention of spontaneous abortions and cleft palate birth defects. Special emphasis was also placed on those new potential indications that pertained to orphan diseases-these are diseases whose rarity means that development of novel treatment is not financially viable. This computational drug repositioning approach uses existing information on drugs and drug targets, and insights into the genetic basis of disease, as a means to systematically generate the most probable new uses for the drugs on offer, and in this way harness their true therapeutic power.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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