Challenges in IBD Research 2024: Precision Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Precision medicine is part of 5 focus areas of the Challenges in IBD Research 2024 research document, which also includes preclinical human IBD mechanisms, environmental triggers, novel technologies, and pragmatic clinical research. Building on Challenges in IBD Research 2019, the current Challenges aims to provide a comprehensive overview of current gaps in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) research and deliver actionable approaches to address them with a focus on how these gaps can lead to advancements in interception, remission, and restoration for these diseases. The document is the result of multidisciplinary input from scientists, clinicians, patients, and funders, and represents a valuable resource for patient-centric research prioritization. In particular, the precision medicine section is focused on the main research gaps in elucidating how to bring the best care to the individual patient in IBD. Research gaps were identified in biomarker discovery and validation for predicting disease progression and choosing the most appropriate treatment for each patient. Other gaps were identified in making the best use of existing patient biosamples and clinical data, developing new technologies to analyze large datasets, and overcoming regulatory and payer hurdles to enable clinical use of biomarkers. To address these gaps, the Workgroup suggests focusing on thoroughly validating existing candidate biomarkers, using best-in-class data generation and analysis tools, and establishing cross-disciplinary teams to tackle regulatory hurdles as early as possible. Altogether, the precision medicine group recognizes the importance of bringing basic scientific biomarker discovery and translating it into the clinic to help improve the lives of IBD patients.
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 | 0.135 | 0.138 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.015 |
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".