ArticlePloS one2019
Identification of pharmacodynamic biomarker hypotheses through literature analysis with IBM Watson.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Increasing the Impact and Value of Laboratory Medicine Through Effective and AI-Assisted Communication.EJIFCC · 2025Review
- Article
- How Differing Audiences Were Associated with User Emotional Expression on a Well-Being App.Human behavior and emerging technologies · 2022Article
- Effective tools for RNA-derived therapeutics: siRNA interference or miRNA mimicry.Theranostics · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPharmacodynamic biomarkers are becoming increasingly valuable for assessing drug activity and target modulation in clinical trials. However, identifying quality biomarkers is challenging due to the increasing volume and heterogeneity of relevant data describing the biological networks that underlie disease mechanisms. A biological pathway network typically includes entities (e.g. genes, proteins and chemicals/drugs) as well as the relationships between these and is typically curated or mined from structured databases and textual co-occurrence data. We propose a hybrid Natural Language Processing and directed relationships-based network analysis approach using IBM Watson for Drug Discovery to rank all human genes and identify potential candidate biomarkers, requiring only an initial determination of a specific target-disease relationship.
methodsThrough natural language processing of scientific literature, Watson for Drug Discovery creates a network of semantic relationships between biological concepts such as genes, drugs, and diseases. Using Bruton's tyrosine kinase as a case study, Watson for Drug Discovery's automatically extracted relationship network was compared with a prominent manually curated physical interaction network. Additionally, potential biomarkers for Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibition were predicted using a matrix factorization approach and subsequently compared with expert-generated biomarkers.
resultsWatson's natural language processing generated a relationship network matching 55 (86%) genes upstream of BTK and 98 (95%) genes downstream of Bruton's tyrosine kinase in a prominent manually curated physical interaction network. Matrix factorization analysis predicted 11 of 13 genes identified by Merck subject matter experts in the top 20% of Watson for Drug Discovery's 13,595 ranked genes, with 7 in the top 5%.
conclusionTaken together, these results suggest that Watson for Drug Discovery's automatic relationship network identifies the majority of upstream and downstream genes in biological pathway networks and can be used to help with the identification and prioritization of pharmacodynamic biomarker evaluation, accelerating the early phases of disease hypothesis generation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.