The future of deep phenotyping in osteoarthritis: How can high throughput omics technologies advance our understanding of the cellular and molecular taxonomy of the disease?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of musculoskeletal disease with significant healthcare costs and unmet needs in terms of early diagnosis and treatment. Many of the drugs that have been developed to treat OA failed in phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials or produced inconclusive and ambiguous results. High throughput omics technologies are a powerful tool to better understand the mechanisms of the development of OA and other arthritic diseases. In this paper we outline the strategic reasons for increasingly applying deep phenotyping in OA for the benefit of gaining a better understanding of disease mechanisms and developing targeted treatments. This editorial is intended to launch a special themed issue of Osteoarthritis and Cartilage Open addressing the timely topic of “Advances in omics technologies for deep phenotyping in osteoarthritis”. High throughput omics technologies are increasingly being applied in mechanistic studies of OA and other arthritic diseases. Applying multi-omics approaches in OA is a high priority and will allow us to gather new information on disease pathogenesis at the cellular level, and integrate data from diverse omics technology platforms to enable deep phenotyping. We anticipate that new knowledge in this area will allow us to harness the power of Big Data Analytics and resolve the extremely complex and overlapping clinical phenotypes into molecular endotypes, revealing new information about the cellular taxonomy of OA and “druggable pathways”, thus facilitating future drug development.
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 | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".