A Blueprint for Identifying Phenotypes and Drug Targets in Complex Disorders with Empirical Dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A central challenge in medicine is translating from observational understanding to mechanistic understanding, where some observations are recognized as causes for the others. This can lead not only to new treatments and understanding, but also to recognition of novel phenotypes. Here, we apply a collection of mathematical techniques ( empirical dynamics ), which infer mechanistic networks in a model-free manner from longitudinal data, to hematopoiesis. Our study consists of three subjects with markers for cyclic thrombocytopenia, in which multiple cells and proteins undergo abnormal oscillations. One subject has atypical markers and may represent a rare phenotype. Our analyses support this contention, and also lend new evidence to a theory for the cause of this disorder. Simulations of an intervention yield encouraging results, even when applied to patient data outside our three subjects. These successes suggest that this blueprint has broader applicability in understanding and treating complex disorders.
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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".