Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26659699›Full record

ReviewClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2016

Leveraging big data to transform target selection and drug discovery.

B Chen, A J Butte

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

72 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. PromisingFrontiers in immunology · 2022
    Review

12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

B ChenInstitute for Computational Health Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
A J ButteInstitute for Computational Health Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.

Funding

Repositioning drugs for the treatment of small cell lung cancerR01GM079719 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI BUTTE, ATUL J · 2006 to 2015
$4.4M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM079719NIGMS NIH HHS R01GM079719
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The advances of genomics, sequencing, and high throughput technologies have led to the creation of large volumes of diverse datasets for drug discovery. Analyzing these datasets to better understand disease and discover new drugs is becoming more common. Recent open data initiatives in basic and clinical research have dramatically increased the types of data available to the public. The past few years have witnessed successful use of big data in many sectors across the whole drug discovery pipeline. In this review, we will highlight the state of the art in leveraging big data to identify new targets, drug indications, and drug response biomarkers in this era of precision medicine.

Indexed as

Datasets as TopicBiomarkers, PharmacologicalDrug DiscoveryHumansMolecular Targeted TherapyPrecision MedicineBiomarkers, Pharmacological

Identifiers

PMID26659699
PMCPMC4785018

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.