A systems-level analysis of drug–target–disease associations for drug repositioning
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".