Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31031797›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in genetics2019

Network Medicine in the Age of Biomedical Big Data.

Abhijeet R Sonawane, Scott T Weiss, Kimberly Glass, Amitabh Sharma

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 101 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
101citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

101 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Loss of long-range co-expression is a common feature in cancer.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2026
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Generative prediction of causal gene sets responsible for complex traits.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025
    Article

41 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Abhijeet R SonawaneChanning Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
Scott T WeissChanning Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
Kimberly GlassChanning Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
Amitabh SharmaChanning Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.

Funding

Systems Biology of Airway DiseaseP01HL132825 · NHLBI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI WEISS, SCOTT T · 2016 to 2020
$12.6M
Using Integrative Networks to Explore Heterogeneous Phenotypes in COPDK25HL133599 · NHLBI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI GLASS, KIMBERLY RENEE · 2016 to 2020
$945k
NHLBI NIH HHS K25 HL133599NHLBI NIH HHS P01 HL132825
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Network medicine is an emerging area of research dealing with molecular and genetic interactions, network biomarkers of disease, and therapeutic target discovery. Large-scale biomedical data generation offers a unique opportunity to assess the effect and impact of cellular heterogeneity and environmental perturbations on the observed phenotype. Marrying the two, network medicine with biomedical data provides a framework to build meaningful models and extract impactful results at a network level. In this review, we survey existing network types and biomedical data sources. More importantly, we delve into ways in which the network medicine approach, aided by phenotype-specific biomedical data, can be gainfully applied. We provide three paradigms, mainly dealing with three major biological network archetypes: protein-protein interaction, expression-based, and gene regulatory networks. For each of these paradigms, we discuss a broad overview of philosophies under which various network methods work. We also provide a few examples in each paradigm as a test case of its successful application. Finally, we delineate several opportunities and challenges in the field of network medicine. We hope this review provides a lexicon for researchers from biological sciences and network theory to come on the same page to work on research areas that require interdisciplinary expertise. Taken together, the understanding gained from combining biomedical data with networks can be useful for characterizing disease etiologies and identifying therapeutic targets, which, in turn, will lead to better preventive medicine with translational impact on personalized healthcare.

Indexed as

biological networksbiomedical big dataco-expressiongene regulationsinteractomenetwork medicinephenotype-specificitysystems medicine

Identifiers

PMID31031797
PMCPMC6470635

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.