MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7084135667 · doi:10.1101/2025.09.23.25336370

Benchmarking genome-wide association study causal gene prioritization for drug discovery

2025· preprint· en· W7084135667 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEastern European Communism and Reforms
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenome-wide association studyExpression quantitative trait lociPrioritizationGenetic associationBenchmarkingPharmacogenomicsDrugPharmacogeneticsLocus (genetics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Drug discovery is costly, with billions spent on failed trials. Drugs with genetic support from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have substantially greater odds of success, but how best to use GWAS to prioritize drug targets remains unclear. We evaluated the performance of GWAS causal gene prioritization methods from the Open Targets consortium by cross-referencing their predictions with drug trial outcomes for 445 diseases. We found that neither expression quantitative trait locus colocalization nor Open Targets’ locus-to-gene (L2G) score outperformed the simple nearest gene method at prioritizing which genes would become approved drug targets. Our findings inform the use of genetic evidence in drug discovery.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.837

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it