Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical research and practice in the 21st century is poised to be transformed by analysis of computable electronic medical records and population-level genome-scale patient profiles. Genomic data capture genetic and environmental state, providing information on heterogeneity in disease and treatment outcome, but genomic-based clinical risk scores are limited. Achieving the goal of routine precision medicine that takes advantage of these rich genomics data will require computational methods that support heterogeneous data, have excellent predictive performance, and ideally, provide biologically interpretable results. Traditional machine-learning approaches excel at performance, but often have limited interpretability. Patient similarity networks are an emerging paradigm for precision medicine, in which patients are clustered or classified based on their similarities in various features, including genomic profiles. This strategy is analogous to standard medical diagnosis, has excellent performance, is interpretable, and can preserve patient privacy. We review new methods based on patient similarity networks, including Similarity Network Fusion for patient clustering and netDx for patient classification. While these methods are already useful, much work is required to improve their scalability for contemporary genetic cohorts, optimize parameters, and incorporate a wide range of genomics and clinical data. The coming 5 years will provide an opportunity to assess the utility of network-based algorithms for precision medicine.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
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".