A Systematic Review of Polygenic Models for Predicting Drug Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polygenic models have emerged as promising prediction tools for the prediction of complex traits. Currently, the majority of polygenic models are developed in the context of predicting disease risk, but polygenic models may also prove useful in predicting drug outcomes. This study sought to understand how polygenic models incorporating pharmacogenetic variants are being used in the prediction of drug outcomes. A systematic review was conducted with the aim of gaining insights into the methods used to construct polygenic models, as well as their performance in drug outcome prediction. The search uncovered 89 papers that incorporated pharmacogenetic variants in the development of polygenic models. It was found that the most common polygenic models were constructed for drug dosing predictions in anticoagulant therapies (n = 27). While nearly all studies found a significant association with their polygenic model and the investigated drug outcome (93.3%), less than half (47.2%) compared the performance of the polygenic model against clinical predictors, and even fewer (40.4%) sought to validate model predictions in an independent cohort. Additionally, the heterogeneity of reported performance measures makes the comparison of models across studies challenging. These findings highlight key considerations for future work in developing polygenic models in pharmacogenomic research.
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 | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".