Pharmacogenetics to Avoid Adverse Reactions in Cardiology: Ready for Implementation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiovascular Diseases (CVs) are one of the main causes of mortality and disability around the world. Advances in drug treatment have greatly improved survival and quality of life in the past decades, but associated adverse events remain a relevant problem. Pharmacogenetics can help individualize cardiovascular treatment, reducing associated toxicities and improving outcomes. Several scientific societies and working groups periodically review available studies and provide consensus recommendations for those gene-drug pairs with a sufficient level of evidence. However, these recommendations are rarely mandatory, and the indications on how to adjust treatment can vary between different guidelines, which limits their clinical applicability. The aim of this review is to compile, compare and discuss available guidelines and recommendations by the main Pharmacogenetics Consortiums (Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC); Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG); the French Network of Pharmacogenetics (Réseau national de pharmacogénétique (RNPGx) and The Canadian Pharmacogenomics Network for Drug Safety (CPNDS) regarding how to apply pharmacogenetic results to optimize pharmacotherapy in cardiology. Pharmacogenetic recommendations included in European or American drug labels, as well as those included in the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) treatment guidelines are also discussed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".