Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35207655›Full record

ReviewJournal of personalized medicine2022

Computational Models for Clinical Applications in Personalized Medicine-Guidelines and Recommendations for Data Integration and Model Validation.

Catherine Bjerre Collin, Tom Gebhardt, Martin Golebiewski, Tugce Karaderi, Maximilian Hillemanns, Faiz Muhammad Khan, Ali Salehzadeh-Yazdi, Marc Kirschner, Sylvia Krobitsch, Eu-Stands Pm Consortium and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. New Personalized Medicine Model for Medication Management.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Challenges and opportunities in uncertainty quantification for healthcare and biological systems.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2025
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

11 authors.

Catherine Bjerre CollinNovo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, 2200 N Copenhagen, Denmark.
Tom GebhardtDepartment of Systems Biology and Bioinformatics, University of Rostock, 18057 Rostock, Germany.
Martin GolebiewskiHeidelberg Institute for Theoretical Studies gGmbH, 69118 Heidelberg, Germany.
Tugce KaraderiNovo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, 2200 N Copenhagen, Denmark.
Maximilian HillemannsDepartment of Systems Biology and Bioinformatics, University of Rostock, 18057 Rostock, Germany.
Faiz Muhammad KhanDepartment of Systems Biology and Bioinformatics, University of Rostock, 18057 Rostock, Germany.
Ali Salehzadeh-YazdiMax-Planck-Institute for Multidisciplinary Sciences, 37077 Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1678-0051
Marc KirschnerForschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Project Management Jülich, 52425 Jülich, Germany.
Sylvia KrobitschForschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Project Management Jülich, 52425 Jülich, Germany.
Eu-Stands Pm Consortium
Lars KuepferInstitute for Systems Medicine with Focus on Organ Interaction, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, 52074 Aachen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8741-7786

Funding

The European Union Horizon 2020 framework programme of the European Commission 825843The German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the SASKit project FKZ 01ZX1903BThe Novo Nordisk Foundation Data Science Investigator NNF20OC0062294
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The future development of personalized medicine depends on a vast exchange of data from different sources, as well as harmonized integrative analysis of large-scale clinical health and sample data. Computational-modelling approaches play a key role in the analysis of the underlying molecular processes and pathways that characterize human biology, but they also lead to a more profound understanding of the mechanisms and factors that drive diseases; hence, they allow personalized treatment strategies that are guided by central clinical questions. However, despite the growing popularity of computational-modelling approaches in different stakeholder communities, there are still many hurdles to overcome for their clinical routine implementation in the future. Especially the integration of heterogeneous data from multiple sources and types are challenging tasks that require clear guidelines that also have to comply with high ethical and legal standards. Here, we discuss the most relevant computational models for personalized medicine in detail that can be considered as best-practice guidelines for application in clinical care. We define specific challenges and provide applicable guidelines and recommendations for study design, data acquisition, and operation as well as for model validation and clinical translation and other research areas.

Indexed as

clinical translationcomputational modelsdata integrationethical and legal requirementsguidelines and recommendationsmodel validationpersonalized medicine

Identifiers

PMID35207655
PMCPMC8879572

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.