4.7 Review

Computational Methods for Identifying Similar Diseases

Journal

MOLECULAR THERAPY-NUCLEIC ACIDS
Volume 18, Issue -, Pages 590-604

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.omtn.2019.09.019

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61871160, 61502125]
  2. Heilongjiang Postdoctoral Fund [LBH-TZ20, LBH-Z15179]
  3. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2018T110315, 2016M590291]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although our knowledge of human diseases has increased dramatically, the molecular basis, phenotypic traits, and therapeutic targets of most diseases still remain unclear. An increasing number of studies have observed that similar diseases often are caused by similar molecules, can be diagnosed by similar markers or phenotypes, or can be cured by similar drugs. Thus, the identification of diseases similar to known ones has attracted considerable attention worldwide. To this end, the associations between diseases at the molecular, phenotypic, and taxonomic levels were used to measure the pairwise similarity in diseases. The corresponding performance assessment strategies for these methods involving the terms category-based, simulated-patient-based, and benchmark-data-based were thus further emphasized. Then, frequently used methods were evaluated using a benchmark-data-based strategy. To facilitate the assessment of disease similarity scores, researchers have designed dozens of tools that implement these methods for calculating disease similarity. Currently, disease similarity has been advantageous in predicting noncoding RNA (ncRNA) function and therapeutic drugs for diseases. In this article, we review disease similarity methods, evaluation strategies, tools, and their applications in the biomedical community. We further evaluate the performance of these methods and discuss the current limitations and future trends for calculating disease similarity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available