Cited by 5,034Bioinformatics and Genomic NetworksBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesComputational Drug Discovery Methods

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 139 of the 140 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Network medicine: a network-based approach to human disease

Open access
Barabási, Albert-László, Gulbahce, Natali, Loscalzo, Joseph·2011·Nature Reviews Genetics

Abstract

Given the functional interdependencies between the molecular components in a human cell, a disease is rarely a consequence of an abnormality in a single gene, but reflects the perturbations of the complex intracellular and intercellular network that links tissue and organ systems. The emerging tools of network medicine offer a platform to explore systematically not only the molecular complexity of a particular disease, leading to the identification of disease modules and pathways, but also the molecular relationships among apparently distinct (patho)phenotypes. Advances in this direction are essential for identifying new disease genes, for uncovering the biological significance of disease-associated mutations identified by genome-wide association studies and full-genome sequencing, and for identifying drug targets and biomarkers for complex diseases.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nrg2918

Cites

139 of 139 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 140 references

1 of the 140 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 1,013

Metadata

Authors
Barabási, A.-L., Gulbahce, N., & Loscalzo, J.
Affiliations
  • Northeastern University (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Venue
Nature Reviews Genetics
Published
2010-12-17
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
56-68
ISSN
  • 1471-0056 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-0064
OpenAlex
W2062533676
Cited by
5,034
References
140
Citations by year
2026: 421 · 2025: 322 · 2024: 296 · 2023: 299 · 2022: 346 · 2021: 390 · 2020: 384 · 2019: 356 · 2018: 383 · 2017: 326 · 2016: 311 · 2015: 324 · 2014: 309 · 2013: 272 · 2012: 217
FWCI
15.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Reviews Genetics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (HL81587, HL 70819, U54HL070819, P01HL081587, R21HL089734, R01HL061795, HL-48743, P01HL048743, HL-061795, R37HL061795)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Drug Discovery › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
Keywords
network medicine, molecular networks, disease-associated genes, disease-associated mutations, therapeutic target, biomarkers, disease modules, complex diseases, genome-wide association study, full genome sequencing
MeSH terms
Disease, Humans, Gene Expression Profiling, Databases, Genetic, Gene Regulatory Networks, Metabolic Networks and Pathways, Genome-Wide Association Study

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review