Predicting disease‐associated genes: Computational methods, databases, and evaluations
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
Abstract Complex diseases are associated with a set of genes (called disease genes), the identification of which can help scientists uncover the mechanisms of diseases and develop new drugs and treatment strategies. Due to the huge cost and time of experimental identification techniques, many computational algorithms have been proposed to predict disease genes. Although several review publications in recent years have discussed many computational methods, some of them focus on cancer driver genes while others focus on biomolecular networks, which only cover a specific aspect of existing methods. In this review, we summarize existing methods and classify them into three categories based on their rationales. Then, the algorithms, biological data, and evaluation methods used in the computational prediction are discussed. Finally, we highlight the limitations of existing methods and point out some future directions for improving these algorithms. This review could help investigators understand the principles of existing methods, and thus develop new methods to advance the computational prediction of disease genes. This article is categorized under: Technologies > Machine Learning Technologies > Prediction Algorithmic Development > Biological Data Mining
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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