Biomedical data, computational methods and tools for evaluating disease–disease associations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent decades, exploring potential relationships between diseases has been an active research field. With the rapid accumulation of disease-related biomedical data, a lot of computational methods and tools/platforms have been developed to reveal intrinsic relationship between diseases, which can provide useful insights to the study of complex diseases, e.g. understanding molecular mechanisms of diseases and discovering new treatment of diseases. Human complex diseases involve both external phenotypic abnormalities and complex internal molecular mechanisms in organisms. Computational methods with different types of biomedical data from phenotype to genotype can evaluate disease-disease associations at different levels, providing a comprehensive perspective for understanding diseases. In this review, available biomedical data and databases for evaluating disease-disease associations are first summarized. Then, existing computational methods for disease-disease associations are reviewed and classified into five groups in terms of the usages of biomedical data, including disease semantic-based, phenotype-based, function-based, representation learning-based and text mining-based methods. Further, we summarize software tools/platforms for computation and analysis of disease-disease associations. Finally, we give a discussion and summary on the research of disease-disease associations. This review provides a systematic overview for current disease association research, which could promote the development and applications of computational methods and tools/platforms for disease-disease associations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".