4.6 Review

Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Rare Diseases: Is the Future Brighter?

Journal

GENES
Volume 10, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/genes10120978

Keywords

artificial intelligence; big data; congenital disorders of glycosylation; diagnosis; drug repurposing; machine learning; personalized medicine; rare diseases

Funding

  1. CDG Professionals and Patient Associations International Network (CDG Allies-PPAIN)
  2. Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia (FCT) [SFRH/BD/138647/2018, SFRH/BD/124326/2016]
  3. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/138647/2018, SFRH/BD/124326/2016] Funding Source: FCT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The amount of data collected and managed in (bio)medicine is ever-increasing. Thus, there is a need to rapidly and efficiently collect, analyze, and characterize all this information. Artificial intelligence (AI), with an emphasis on deep learning, holds great promise in this area and is already being successfully applied to basic research, diagnosis, drug discovery, and clinical trials. Rare diseases (RDs), which are severely underrepresented in basic and clinical research, can particularly benefit from AI technologies. Of the more than 7000 RDs described worldwide, only 5% have a treatment. The ability of AI technologies to integrate and analyze data from different sources (e.g., multi-omics, patient registries, and so on) can be used to overcome RDs' challenges (e.g., low diagnostic rates, reduced number of patients, geographical dispersion, and so on). Ultimately, RDs' AI-mediated knowledge could significantly boost therapy development. Presently, there are AI approaches being used in RDs and this review aims to collect and summarize these advances. A section dedicated to congenital disorders of glycosylation (CDG), a particular group of orphan RDs that can serve as a potential study model for other common diseases and RDs, has also been included.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available