Genetic Polymorphisms in Pharmaceuticals and Chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of genetic polymorphisms has significantly advanced the field of personalized medicine. Polymorphism of genes influence the efficacy of drugs used for treating medical conditions such as depression, cardiac diseases, thromboembolic disorders, oncological diseases, etc. The study of genetic polymorphism is beneficial for drug safety as well as for assessing therapeutic outcomes. Understanding and detecting genetic polymorphisms early on in patients can be useful in selecting the correct chemotherapeutic agent and appropriate dosage for a patient. Knowing the genetic profile of a patient and the interindividual response to various drugs significantly influences the proper selection of medication - a key step towards personalized medicine. Polymorphisms also make patients susceptible to certain cancers and identification of these polymorphisms early can be useful for a personalized treatment plan. The Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS) project where millions of genetic variants in the genomes of many individuals are studied to identify connections between what is present on the gene and the phenotype of the patient has enhanced the prospect of personalized medicine. GWAS has been used to identify hundreds of diseases associated to genetic polymorphisms. Individual pharmacokinetic profiles of patients to drugs enable the development of early surveillance protocols to prophylactically prevent patients from having adverse reactions. Furthermore, patient-derived cellular organoids are another advancement that allows researchers to screen for polymorphisms of the patient for adverse reactions from chemotherapy and will allow for the development of new medications that are specific to the profile of the patient's tumor. These advances have led to significant progress towards personalized medicine. The functional consequences of genetic polymorphism on cancer drugs and treatment are studied here.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".