This special issue on precision medicine informatics flowed from the AMIA 2015 Translational Bioinformatics Summit theme of “Accelerating Precision Medicine”1 and President Obama’s 2015 State of the Union call “to give all of us access to the personalized information we need to keep ourselves and our families healthier.”2 The goal is to focus on the inherent translational informatics challenges, concerns, and opportunities afforded by precision medicine to provide an accurate, personalized characterization of patient populations based on various characteristics including molecular (eg, genomic, proteomic), clinical (eg, comorbidities), environmental exposures, lifestyle, patient preferences, and other information.4–13 Informatics is a necessary component in a comprehensive initiative to tackle precision medicine. Its roles include (1) managing big data,15–17 (2) creating learning systems for knowledge generation,18–21 (3) providing access for individual involvement,22–25 and (4) ultimately supporting optimal delivery of precision treatments derived from translational research.26–29 The papers submitted for this special issue cover these 4 areas and expand on the themes of informatics emerging in the field of precision medicine.
BIG DATA
Data become “big” when the scale of the data and analyses challenge our traditional systems in size, velocity, or complexity.8 The large scale of the Million Veterans Program is an example, with systems and analysis methods being developed for application in a repository that has established policies and procedures. The Million Veterans Program can serve as a model for involving thousands of individuals in precision medicine research.30 Similarly, the Precision Medicine Initiative Cohort Program seeks to connect electronic health records with participant-provided data, molecular determinants, environment, and lifestyle patterns to deeply impact our knowledge of health and therapies.31 The ambitious goal of enrolling 1 million volunteers whose demographics reflect the diversity of the US population can only be accomplished with robust and scalable informatics. Tenenbaum et al.3,32 present an informatics perspective and describe key informatics innovations required to advance precision medicine.
Big data can also be characterized by the velocity of data, such as in real-time data collection. We have come to expect nearly instant access and tracking of information that improves our quality of life.33–35 With precision medicine, the informatics research community is responding to the challenge and is providing applications relevant to the health of individuals. The Substitutable Medical Applications, Reusable Technologies (SMART) application by Warner et al.36 provides the ability to visualize genomic information for oncology treatment using mobile technology. This can facilitate individualized communication about cancer treatment options in the context of genomic information. Personalizing treatment using the vast volume of available molecular data requires tools that reduce cognitive load.14,37 The tools described by Xu et al.38 create a knowledge base of 2024 genomically informed clinical trials and treatments to support the delivery of personalized cancer therapy. Fathiamini et al.,39 Hintzsche et al.,40 and Cheng et al.41 describe resources that identify variants relevant to therapeutic treatments, variant calls, and natural language processing approaches to create structured information resources.
LEARNING SYSTEMS
Informatics has the potential to enable the collection, analysis, and reuse of data to facilitate learning knowledge representations for a wide range of diseases using phenotypes, genotypes, and predictive analytics.42–51 Halpern et al.52 present an approach to derive computable phenotypes using machine learning techniques that reduce the need to manually create phenotypes, which can be expensive and time-consuming. The use of machine learning techniques to establish disease-mutation relationships is described by Singhal et al.53 Rioth et al.54 describe automatic parsing and categorizing of molecular profiles gathered in routine care into a database that can inform research and clinical practice. Hoffman et al.55 describe guidelines for incorporating pharmacogenetic tests into clinical decision support systems. The integration of epidemiological evidence into knowledge representations that can inform care is explored by Torosyan et al.56 The integration of information from a wide variety of sources combined with learning systems promises to speed discovery.
With patients and physicians making decisions based on genetic tests that identify actionable risks, a patient’s individual attitudes can influence how the information is accepted and used. Strategies and frameworks that address engagement and disparities will need to be developed.57–62 Dye et al.63 show that some minority populations are less likely to want genetic testing or participate in genetic research, which has the potential to exacerbate existing disparities. Precision medicine is focused on the individual patient. Given that molecular measurements are increasingly guiding care, studies will be needed to understand how to improve acceptance and participation by minorities. Adams and Petersen64 discuss ethical, legal, and social issues that can arise when large numbers of individuals participate in genetic research. A framework for addressing ethical, legal, and social challenges can facilitate trust while protecting the individual and advancing research. Ni et al.65 describe a learning framework to predict patient involvement in clinical trials with the goal of improving the effectiveness of recruitment.
PRECISION TREATMENT
The evaluation of methods to match genomics to therapeutics is an active area of research.66–74 Eubank et al.75 developed an informatics solution to manage genetic/genomic and clinical data to expedite clinical trials of targeted cancer therapies at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. As of August 2015, the system contained data on 159 893 patients, with 64 473 being tracked across 134 research cohorts with 51 192 patients in a genotype-matched eligible pool. The system can serve as a model for cohort programs in cancer clinical trials. Patients will want to know the outcomes for other patients in similar situations, and Warner et al.76 provide a system that tracks clinical outcomes over time. Access to such information is vital to informed decision makers who are involved in keeping themselves and their families healthy. The direct relationship between clinical trials and knowledge representations is demonstrated through a knowledge base for proper cancer drug selection and a The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) analysis of triple-negative breast cancer, where 71.7% of 85 cancer patients had Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved “drug-able” genomic targets.77
Informatics tools will be required for precision medicine to both catalyze research on huge populations and enable implementation of precision care now done for isolated cases in routine care. With the powerful response of the translational informatics community to the request for papers for this precision medicine special focus issue, we can chart the main themes of the course ahead. The initial response is the beginning of a transition in health care that is supported through informatics to propel participating individuals into the center of research and care. The needs of such an interactive model of care are broad and will need to be further defined as the initial systems are tested and measure how, when, and where they improve the health and outcomes of individuals and families.
FUNDING
The work of L.J.F. was supported in part by National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants 1R01GM108346-01 and U54-GM104941, Health Equity and Rural Outreach Innovation Center grant CIN 13-418, and funding from the Hollings Cancer Center’s support grant P30 CA138313 at the Medical University of South Carolina. The work of E.V.B. was supported by National Cancer Institute (NCI) U01 CA180964, the Sheikh Bin Zayed Al Nahyan Foundation, the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas Precision Oncology Decision Support Core RP150535, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) grant UL1 TR000371 (Center for Clinical and Translational Sciences), the Bosarge Foundation, and an MD Anderson Cancer Center support grant (NCI P30 CA016672). The work of J.C.D. was supported by R01 LM 010685, R01 GM 103859, and R01 GM 105688 from the NIH.
REFERENCES
- 1.Translational Bioinformatics Summit 2015, American Medical Informatics Association [Internet]. https://www.amia.org/jointsummits. Accessed March 5, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- 2. Remarks by the president in his State of the Union address, January 20, 2015 [Internet]. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/20/remarks-president-state-union-address-january-20-2015. Accessed March 5, 2016.
- 3. AMIA Genomics and Translational Bioinformatics Working Group (Gen-TBI, formerly the Genomics Working Group)[Internet]. https://www.amia.org/programs/working-groups/genomics-and-translational-bioinformatics. Accessed March 5, 2016.
- 4.Stead WW, Kelly BJ, Kolodner RM. Achievable steps toward building a National Health Information Infrastructure in the United States. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005;12(2):113–120. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Collins FS. The case for a US prospective cohort study of genes and environment. Nature. 2004;429(6990):475–477. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.National Research Council (US) Committee on a Framework for Developing a New Taxonomy of Disease. Toward Precision Medicine: Building a Knowledge Network for Biomedical Research and a New Taxonomy of Disease [Internet]. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK91503/. Accessed March 5, 2016. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Roychowdhury S, Chinnaiyan AM. Translating genomics for precision cancer medicine. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2014;15:395–415. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Frey LJ, Lenert L, Lopez-Campos G. EHR big data deep phenotyping. IMIA Yearbook. 2014;9(1):206–211. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Robinson PN. Deep phenotyping for precision medicine. Hum Mutat. 2012;33(5):777–780. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Hripcsak G, Albers DJ. Next-generation phenotyping of electronic health records. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013;20(1):117–121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Richesson RL, Hammond WE, Nahm M, et al. Electronic health records based phenotyping in next-generation clinical trials: a perspective from the NIH Health Care Systems Collaboratory. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013;20(e2):e226–e231. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Ritchie MD, Denny JC, Crawford DC, et al. Robust replication of genotype-phenotype associations across multiple diseases in an electronic medical record. Am J Hum Genet. 2010;86(4):560–572. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Newton KM, Peissig PL, Kho AN, et al. Validation of electronic medical record–based phenotyping algorithms: results and lessons learned from the eMERGE network. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013;20(e1):e147–e154. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Stead WW, Starmer JM. Beyond expert based practice. In McClellan M, et al., eds. Evidence-Based Medicine and the Changing Nature of Healthcare: 2007 IOM Annual Meeting Summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2008. Institute of Medicine (US). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK52820/. Accessed March 5, 2016. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.PMI Working Group. Precision Medicine Initiative—National Institutes of Health (NIH) [Internet]. http://www.nih.gov/precisionmedicine/working-group.htm. Accessed March 5, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Cancer Genome Atlas Network. Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2012;490(7418):61–70. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.UK Biobank. UK Biobank: Protocol for a Large-scale Prospective Epidemiological Resource [Internet]. http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/UK-Biobank-Protocol.pdf. Accessed March 5, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Friedman CP, Wong AK, Blumenthal D. Achieving a nationwide learning health system. Sci Transl Med. 2010;2(57):57cm29. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Kohane IS. Using electronic health records to drive discovery in disease genomics. Nat Rev Genet. 2011;12(6):417–428. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Murphy SN, Weber G, Mendis M, et al. Serving the enterprise and beyond with informatics for integrating biology and the bedside (i2b2). J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2010;17(2):124–130. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Frey LJ, Sward KA, Newth CJL, et al. Virtualization of open-source secure web services to support data exchange in a pediatric critical care research network. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015;22(6):1271–1276. http://jamia.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/6/1271.abstract. Accessed March 5, 2016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.The White House. Precision Medicine Initiative: Proposed Privacy and Trust Principles [Internet]. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/pmi_privacy_and_trust_principles_july_2015.pdf. Accessed March 5, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- 23.Wallerstein N, Duran B. Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: the intersection of science and practice to improve health equity. Am J Public Health. 2010;100 (Suppl 1): S40–S46. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Jagosh J, Macaulay AC, Pluye P, et al. Uncovering the benefits of participatory research: implications of a realist review for health research and practice. Milbank Q. 2012;90(2):311–346. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.OHRP. Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (“Common Rule”) [Internet]. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/commonrule/. Accessed March 5, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Ashley EA, Butte AJ, Wheeler MT, et al. Clinical assessment incorporating a personal genome. Lancet. 2010;375(9725):1525–1535. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Chapman PB, Hauschild A, Robert C, et al. Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(26):2507–2516. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Ellis PM, Coakley N, Feld R, et al. Use of the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, dacomitinib, and icotinib in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review. Curr Oncol Tor Ont. 2015;22(3):e183–e215. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Starren J, Williams MS, Bottinger EP. Crossing the omic chasm: a time for omic ancillary systems. JAMA. 2013;309(12):1237–1238. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Gaziano JM, Concato J, Brophy M, et al. Million Veterans Program: a mega-biobank to study genetic influences on health and disease. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;70:214–223. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.PMI Working Group—Precision Medicine Initiative—National Institutes of Health (NIH). The Precision Medicine Initiative Cohort Program—Building a Research Foundation for 21st Century Medicine [Internet]. http://www.nih.gov/sites/default/files/research-training/initiatives/pmi/pmi-working-group-report-20150917-2.pdf. Accessed March 5, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- 32.Tenenbaum J, Avillach P, Benham-Hutchins M, et al. An informatics research agenda to support precision medicine: 7 key areas. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(4):791–795. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Duggan M. Cell Phone Activities 2013 [Internet]. Pew Res Cent Internet Sci Tech. http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/09/19/cell-phone-activities-2013/. Accessed March 5, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- 34.Smith A. U.S. Smartphone Use in 2015 [Internet]. Pew Res Cent Internet Sci Tech. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-2015/. Accessed March 5, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- 35.Rappaport SM. Implications of the exposome for exposure science. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2011;21(1):5–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Warner JL, Rioth MJ, Mandl KD, et al. SMART precision cancer medicine: a FHIR-based app to provide genomic information at the point of care. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(4):701–710. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Bainbridge MN, Wiszniewski W, Murdock DR, et al. Whole-genome sequencing for optimized patient management. Sci Transl Med. 2011;3(87):1–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Xu J, Lee HJ, Zeng J, et al. Extracting genetic alteration information for personalized cancer therapy from ClinicalTrials.gov. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(4): 750–757. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Fathiamini S, Johnson AM, Zeng J, et al. Automated identification of molecular effects of drugs (AIMED). J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(4): 758–765. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Hintzsche J, Kim J, Yadav V, et al. IMPACT: Whole-exome sequencing analysis pipeline of integrating molecular profiles with actionable therapeutics in clinical samples. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(4):721–730. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Cheng F, Zhao J, Fooksa M, Zhao Z. A network-based drug repositioning infrastructure for precision cancer medicine through targeting significantly mutated genes in human cancer genomes. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(4):681–691. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Sudlow C, Gallacher J, Allen N, et al. UK Biobank: an open access resource for identifying the causes of a wide range of complex diseases of middle and old age. PLoS Med. 2015;12(3):1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Ahmad T, Pencina MJ, Schulte PJ, et al. Clinical implications of chronic heart failure phenotypes defined by cluster analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(17):1765–1774. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Doshi-Velez F, Ge Y, Kohane I. Comorbidity clusters in autism spectrum disorders: an electronic health record time-series analysis. Pediatrics. 2013;peds.2013-0819. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Cohen JC, Boerwinkle E, Mosley TH, Hobbs HH. Sequence variations in PCSK9, Low LDL, and protection against coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(12):1264–1272. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Denny JC, Bastarache L, Ritchie MD, et al. Systematic comparison of phenome-wide association study of electronic medical record data and genome-wide association study data. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31(12): 1102–1111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Kho AN, Hayes MG, Rasmussen-Torvik L, et al. Use of diverse electronic medical record systems to identify genetic risk for type 2 diabetes within a genome-wide association study. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19(2):212–218. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Kho AN, Pacheco JA, Peissig PL, et al. Electronic medical records for genetic research: results of the eMERGE Consortium. Sci Transl Med. 2011; 3(79):79re1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Crawford DC, Crosslin DR, Tromp G, et al. eMERGEing progress in genomics-the first seven years. Front Genet. 2014;5:184. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Collins FS, Hudson KL, Briggs JP, Lauer MS. PCORnet: turning a dream into reality. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(4):576–577. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Pulley JM, Denny JC, Peterson JF, et al. Operational implementation of prospective genotyping for personalized medicine: The design of the Vanderbilt PREDICT project. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012;92(1):87–95 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Halpern Y, Horng S, Choi Y, Sontag D. Electronic medical record phenotyping using the anchor & learn framework. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016; 23(e1):e20–e27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Singhal A, Simmons M, Lu Z, et al. Text mining for precision medicine: automating disease mutation relationship extraction from biomedical literature. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(4):766–772. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Rioth MJ, Thota R, Staggs D, et al. Pragmatic precision oncology: the secondary uses of clinical tumor molecular profiling. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(4): 773–776. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Hoffman JM, Dunnenberger HM, Hicks JK, et al. Developing knowledge resources to support precision medicine: principles from the clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(4): 796–801. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Torosyan Y, Hu Y, Hoffman S, et al. An in silico framework for integrating epidemiologic and genetic evidence with healthcare applications: ventilation-related pneumothorax as a case illustration. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(4):711–720. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.NIH. Request for Information: NIH Precision Medicine Cohort—Strategies to Address Community Engagement and Health Disparities. 2015. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-15-107.html. Accessed March 5, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- 58.Braveman PA, Kumanyika S, Fielding J, et al. Health disparities and health equity: the issue is justice. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(S1):S149–S155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Kaufman D, Murphy J, Scott J, Hudson K. Subjects matter: a survey of public opinions about a large genetic cohort study. Genet Med. 2008; 10(11):831–839. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Murphy J, Scott J, Kaufman D, et al. Public expectations for return of results from large-cohort genetic research. Am J Bioeth AJOB. 2008;8(11):36–43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Trinidad SB, Fullerton SM, Ludman EJ, et al. Research practice and participant preferences: the growing gulf. Science. 2011;331(6015):287–288. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Beskow LM, Linney KN, Radtke RA, et al. Ethical challenges in genotype-driven research recruitment. Genome Res. 2010;20(6):705–709. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Dye, et al. Sociocultural variation in attitudes toward use of genetic information and participation in genetic research by race in the United States: implications for precision medicine. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016; 23(4);782–786. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Adams SA, Petersen C. Precision medicine: opportunities, possibilities, and challenges for patients and providers. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016; 23(4):787–790. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Ni Y, Beck AF, Taylor R, et al. Will they participate? Predicting patients’ response to clinical trial invitations in a pediatric emergency department. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(4):671–670. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Plenge RM, Scolnick EM, Altshuler D. Validating therapeutic targets through human genetics. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2013;12(8):581–594. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Okada Y, Wu D, Trynka G, et al. Genetics of rheumatoid arthritis contributes to biology and drug discovery. Nature. 2014;506(7488):376–381. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Sanseau P, Agarwal P, Barnes MR, et al. Use of genome-wide association studies for drug repositioning. Nat Biotechnol. 2012;30(4):317–320. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Nelson MR, Tipney H, Painter JL, et al. The support of human genetic evidence for approved drug indications. Nat Genet. 2015;47(8):856–860. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.DePeralta DK, Boland GM. Melanoma: advances in targeted therapy and molecular markers. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(11):3451–3458. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Relling MV, Gardner EE, Sandborn WJ, et al. Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium guidelines for thiopurine methyltransferase genotype and thiopurine dosing. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;89(3):387–391. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Shuldiner AR, O’Connell JR, Bliden KP, et al. Association of cytochrome P450 2C19 genotype with the antiplatelet effect and clinical efficacy of clopidogrel therapy. JAMA. 2009;302(8):849–857. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.The International Warfarin Pharmacogenetics Consortium. Estimation of the Warfarin Dose with Clinical and Pharmacogenetic Data. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(8):753–764. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74.Kimmel SE, French B, Kasner SE, et al. A pharmacogenetic versus a clinical algorithm for warfarin dosing. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(24):2283–2293. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Eubank MH, Hyman DM, Kanakamedala AD, et al. Automated eligibility screening and monitoring for genotype driven precision oncology trials. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(4):777–781. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Warner JL, Wang L, Pao W, et al. CUSTOM-SEQ: A Prototype for Oncology Rapid Learning in a Comprehensive EHR Environment. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(4): 692–700. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Cheng L, Schneider B, Li L. A bioinformatics approach for the precision medicine off-label drug selection among triple negative breast cancer patients. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(4):741–749. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]