ArticlePacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing2019
AICM: A Genuine Framework for Correcting Inconsistency Between Large Pharmacogenomics Datasets.
Article in Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A multi-center study on the consistency of drug sensitivity testing in patients with acute myeloid leukemia.NPJ precision oncology · 2026Article
- Large-scale information retrieval and correction of noisy pharmacogenomic datasets through residual thresholded deep matrix factorization.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- TransCell: In Silico Characterization of Genomic Landscape and Cellular Responses by Deep Transfer Learning.Genomics, proteomics & bioinformatics · 2024Article
- Leveraging multi-source data to resolve inconsistency across pharmacogenomic datasets in drug sensitivity prediction.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024Article
- Reassessing pharmacogenomic cell sensitivity with multilevel statistical models.Biostatistics (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Precision Medicine: Improving health through high-resolution analysis of personal data.Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The inconsistency of open pharmacogenomics datasets produced by different studies limits the usage of such datasets in many tasks, such as biomarker discovery. Investigation of multiple pharmacogenomics datasets confirmed that the pairwise sensitivity data correlation between drugs, or rows, across different studies (drug-wise) is relatively low, while the pairwise sensitivity data correlation between cell-lines, or columns, across different studies (cell-wise) is considerably strong. This common interesting observation across multiple pharmacogenomics datasets suggests the existence of subtle consistency among the different studies (i.e., strong cell-wise correlation). However, significant noises are also shown (i.e., weak drug-wise correlation) and have prevented researchers from comfortably using the data directly. Motivated by this observation, we propose a novel framework for addressing the inconsistency between large-scale pharmacogenomics data sets. Our method can significantly boost the drug-wise correlation and can be easily applied to re-summarized and normalized datasets proposed by others. We also investigate our algorithm based on many different criteria to demonstrate that the corrected datasets are not only consistent, but also biologically meaningful. Eventually, we propose to extend our main algorithm into a framework, so that in the future when more datasets become publicly available, our framework can hopefully offer a "ground-truth" guidance for references.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30864327PMC6417811What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.