Implementation of pharmacogenomics: Where are we now?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pharmacogenomics (PGx), examining the effect of genetic variation on interpatient variation in drug disposition and response, has been widely studied for several decades. However, as cost, as well as turnaround time associated with PGx testing, has significantly improved, the use of PGx in the clinical setting has been gaining momentum. Nevertheless, challenges have emerged in the broader clinical implementation of PGx. In this review, we will outline current models of PGx delivery and methodologies of evaluation, and discuss clinically relevant PGx tests and associated medications. Additionally, we will describe our approach for the broad implementation of pre-emptive DPYD genotyping in patients taking fluoropyrimidines in Ontario, Canada, as an example of clinically actionable PGx testing with sufficient clinical evidence of patient benefit that can become a new standard of patient care. We will highlight challenges associated with PGx testing, including a lack of diversity in PGx studies as well as general limitations that impact the broad adoption of PGx testing. Lastly, we examine the future of PGx, discussing new clinical targets, methodologies and analysis approaches.
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 | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".