The impact and future of artificial intelligence in medical genetics and molecular medicine: an ongoing revolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) platforms have emerged as pivotal tools in genetics and molecular medicine, as in many other fields. The growth in patient data, identification of new diseases and phenotypes, discovery of new intracellular pathways, availability of greater sets of omics data, and the need to continuously analyse them have led to the development of new AI platforms. AI continues to weave its way into the fabric of genetics with the potential to unlock new discoveries and enhance patient care. This technology is setting the stage for breakthroughs across various domains, including dysmorphology, rare hereditary diseases, cancers, clinical microbiomics, the investigation of zoonotic diseases, omics studies in all medical disciplines. AI's role in facilitating a deeper understanding of these areas heralds a new era of personalised medicine, where treatments and diagnoses are tailored to the individual's molecular features, offering a more precise approach to combating genetic or acquired disorders. The significance of these AI platforms is growing as they assist healthcare professionals in the diagnostic and treatment processes, marking a pivotal shift towards more informed, efficient, and effective medical practice. In this review, we will explore the range of AI tools available and show how they have become vital in various sectors of genomic research supporting clinical decisions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".