Biomedical data and computational models for drug repositioning: a comprehensive review
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 can drastically decrease the cost and duration taken by traditional drug research and development while avoiding the occurrence of unforeseen adverse events. With the rapid advancement of high-throughput technologies and the explosion of various biological data and medical data, computational drug repositioning methods have been appealing and powerful techniques to systematically identify potential drug-target interactions and drug-disease interactions. In this review, we first summarize the available biomedical data and public databases related to drugs, diseases and targets. Then, we discuss existing drug repositioning approaches and group them based on their underlying computational models consisting of classical machine learning, network propagation, matrix factorization and completion, and deep learning based models. We also comprehensively analyze common standard data sets and evaluation metrics used in drug repositioning, and give a brief comparison of various prediction methods on the gold standard data sets. Finally, we conclude our review with a brief discussion on challenges in computational drug repositioning, which includes the problem of reducing the noise and incompleteness of biomedical data, the ensemble of various computation drug repositioning methods, the importance of designing reliable negative samples selection methods, new techniques dealing with the data sparseness problem, the construction of large-scale and comprehensive benchmark data sets and the analysis and explanation of the underlying mechanisms of predicted interactions.
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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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