Quantum computing and the implementation of precision medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Precision medicine aims to tailor healthcare by integrating individual genetic, epigenetic, transcriptomic, proteomic, and clinical data, collectively referred to as multi-omic data. However, the scale and complexity of such multi-omics datasets challenge classical computing approaches. Quantum computing, which leverages superposition and entanglement (quantum-level correlations between particles), offers a fundamentally new paradigm for accelerating molecular simulations, biomarker discovery, and high-dimensional data analysis. This review explores the convergence of quantum computing and it's potential to provide unmet needs in precision biomedicine research, with emphasis on applications in diagnostic modeling, multi-omic data integration and drug discovery. We highlight early proof-of-concept studies demonstrating the use of quantum machine learning for disease prediction, quantum algorithms for protein folding, and quantum generative models for novel drug design. Hybrid quantum-classical workflows are also already enabling gene network inference and prioritization of variants of uncertain significance, the latter of which is a major focus of multi-omic research worldwide. Emerging directions include digital twin simulations and real-time clinical decision support powered by quantum models. Looking ahead, the long-term vision for quantum computing in biomedicine involves in silico modeling of entire biological systems to simulate cellular responses to perturbations like drug treatments, enabling clinicians to test therapies in virtual patients before real-world application. Despite these advances, practical implementation remains limited by hardware constraints, qubit decoherence, algorithm scalability, and regulatory barriers. Nonetheless, as quantum hardware evolves and AI-aligned quantum algorithms mature, their integration holds transformative potential. Quantum computing may eventually shorten diagnostic timelines, improve therapeutic precision, and make biomedical innovation more globally accessible. We outline a roadmap for translating these technologies into next-generation precision medicine.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".