MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805727844 · doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a033027

The Role of Next-Generation Sequencing in Pharmacogenetics and Pharmacogenomics

2018· review· en· W2805727844 on OpenAlexafffund
Ute I. Schwarz, Markus Gulilat, Richard B. Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueCold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmacogenetics and Drug Metabolism
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPharmacogenomicsPharmacogeneticsComputational biologyDNA sequencingMedicineBiologyGeneticsPharmacologyGenotypeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inherited genetic variations in pharmacogenetic loci are widely acknowledged as important determinants of phenotypic differences in drug response, and may be actionable in the clinic. However, recent studies suggest that a considerable number of novel rare variants in pharmacogenes likely contribute to a still unexplained fraction of the observed interindividual variability. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) represents a rapid, relatively inexpensive, large-scale DNA sequencing technology with potential relevance as a comprehensive pharmacogenetic genotyping platform to identify genetic variation related to drug therapy. However, many obstacles remain before the clinical use of NGS-based test results, including technical challenges, functional interpretation, and strict requirements for diagnostic tests. Advanced computational analyses, high-throughput screening methodologies, and generation of shared resources with cell-based and clinical information will facilitate the integration of NGS data into candidate genotyping approaches, likely enhancing future drug phenotype predictions in patients.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.254
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations75
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCold Spring Harbor Perspectives in MedicineSame topicPharmacogenetics and Drug MetabolismFrench-language works237,207