ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2019
Global Text Mining and Development of Pharmacogenomic Knowledge Resource for Precision Medicine.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Pharmacogenomics Tools for Precision Public Health and Lessons for Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Scoping Review.Pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine · 2025Review
- Mini review on skin biopsy: traditional and modern techniques.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Text Mining Protocol to Retrieve Significant Drug-Gene Interactions from PubMed Abstracts.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Article
- PharmGKB, an Integrated Resource of Pharmacogenomic Knowledge.Current protocols · 2021Article
- A Novel Text-Mining Approach for Retrieving Pharmacogenomics Associations From the Literature.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Article
- Automated Extraction of Information From Texts of Scientific Publications: Insights Into HIV Treatment Strategies.Frontiers in genetics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Understanding patients' genomic variations and their effect in protecting or predisposing them to drug response phenotypes is important for providing personalized healthcare. Several studies have manually curated such genotype-phenotype relationships into organized databases from clinical trial data or published literature. However, there are no text mining tools available to extract high-accuracy information from such existing knowledge. In this work, we used a semiautomated text mining approach to retrieve a complete pharmacogenomic (PGx) resource integrating disease-drug-gene-polymorphism relationships to derive a global perspective for ease in therapeutic approaches. We used an R package, pubmed.mineR, to automatically retrieve PGx-related literature. We identified 1,753 disease types, and 666 drugs, associated with 4,132 genes and 33,942 polymorphisms collated from 180,088 publications. With further manual curation, we obtained a total of 2,304 PGx relationships. We evaluated our approach by performance (precision = 0.806) with benchmark datasets like Pharmacogenomic Knowledgebase (PharmGKB) (0.904), Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM) (0.600), and The Comparative Toxicogenomics Database (CTD) (0.729). We validated our study by comparing our results with 362 commercially used the US- Food and drug administration (FDA)-approved drug labeling biomarkers. Of the 2,304 PGx relationships identified, 127 belonged to the FDA list of 362 approved pharmacogenomic markers, indicating that our semiautomated text mining approach may reveal significant PGx information with markers for drug response prediction. In addition, it is a scalable and state-of-art approach in curation for PGx clinical utility.
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.