2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2012.04.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Systematic identification of pharmacogenomics information from clinical trials

Abstract: Recent progress in high-throughput genomic technologies has shifted pharmacogenomic research from candidate gene pharmacogenetics to clinical pharmacogenomics (PGx). Many clinical related questions may be asked such as ‘what drug should be prescribed for a patient with mutant alleles?’ Typically, answers to such questions can be found in publications mentioning the relationships of the gene–drug–disease of interest. In this work, we hypothesize that ClinicalTrials.gov is a comparable source rich in PGx related… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
17
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
0
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In contrast, the work described here uses relatively small clinical trial data on ClinicalTrials.gov, which has been proved useful in other works to identify combination therapy (Wu et al, 2015) and pharmacogenomics information (Li & Lu, 2012). The algorithm presented here is simple and direct.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast, the work described here uses relatively small clinical trial data on ClinicalTrials.gov, which has been proved useful in other works to identify combination therapy (Wu et al, 2015) and pharmacogenomics information (Li & Lu, 2012). The algorithm presented here is simple and direct.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The meaning of unrecognized words had to be inferred by the InfoCodex engine based only on its universal internal linguistic database. Third, the text mining algorithms used here do not use rule-based approaches [31], or analyze co-occurrences sentence by sentence [29] or section by section [32], but rather they extract knowledge from entire documents and their relations with semantically related documents.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most machine learning-based methods take randomly generated drug-disease associations as negative samples, in which some false negatives are included and lead to biased decision boundary [7, 11]. The literature mining methods depend on term co-occurrence and sematic inference of some keywords of interest to infer new drug-disease associations [10, 12]. Due to the ambiguity in nature of natural language and limited accuracy of text mining techniques, literature mining-based methods do not obtain desirable performance.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%