MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793349513 · doi:10.1002/cpt.1048

Research Directions in the Clinical Implementation of Pharmacogenomics: An Overview of US Programs and Projects

2018· review· en· W2793349513 on OpenAlexaff
Simona Volpi, Carol J. Bult, Rex L. Chisholm, Patricia A. Deverka, Geoffrey S. Ginsburg, Howard J. Jacob, Melpomeni Kasapi, Howard L. McLeod, Dan M. Roden, Marc S. Williams, Eric D. Green, Laura Lyman Rodriguez, Samuel Aronson, Larisa H. Cavallari, Joshua C. Denny, Lynn G. Dressler, Julie A. Johnson, Teri E. Klein, J. Steven Leeder, Micheline Piquette‐Miller, Minoli A. Perera, Laura J. Rasmussen‐Torvik, Heidi L. Rehm, Marylyn D. Ritchie, Todd C. Skaar, Nikhil Wagle, Richard M. Weinshilboum, Kristin Weitzel, Robert S. Wildin, John T. Wilson, Teri A. Manolio, Mary V. Relling

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmacogenetics and Drug Metabolism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersU.S. National Library of MedicineNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Cancer InstituteNational Human Genome Research Institute
KeywordsPharmacogenomicsHarmPrecision medicineMatching (statistics)DosingMedicinePharmacogeneticsIntensive care medicineComputer scienceData sciencePharmacologyPsychologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Response to a drug often differs widely among individual patients. This variability is frequently observed not only with respect to effective responses but also with adverse drug reactions. Matching patients to the drugs that are most likely to be effective and least likely to cause harm is the goal of effective therapeutics. Pharmacogenomics (PGx) holds the promise of precision medicine through elucidating the genetic determinants responsible for pharmacological outcomes and using them to guide drug selection and dosing. Here we survey the US landscape of research programs in PGx implementation, review current advances and clinical applications of PGx, summarize the obstacles that have hindered PGx implementation, and identify the critical knowledge gaps and possible studies needed to help to address them.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.835
GPT teacher head0.722
Teacher spread0.113 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations130
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Pharmacology & TherapeuticsSame topicPharmacogenetics and Drug MetabolismFrench-language works237,207