Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 414

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 74 of the 74 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

From hype to reality: data science enabling personalized medicine

Open access
Fröhlich, Holger, Balling, Rudi, Beerenwinkel, Niko, Kohlbacher, Oliver, Kumar, Santosh, Lengauer, Thomas, Maathuis, Marloes H., Moreau, Yves, Murphy, Susan A., Przytycka, Teresa M., Rebhan, Michael, Röst, Hannes, Schuppert, Andreas, Schwab, Matthias, Spang, Rainer, Stekhoven, Daniel, Sun, Jimeng, Weber, Andreas, Ziemek, Daniel, Zupan, Blaz·2018·BMC Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Personalized, precision, P4, or stratified medicine is understood as a medical approach in which patients are stratified based on their disease subtype, risk, prognosis, or treatment response using specialized diagnostic tests. The key idea is to base medical decisions on individual patient characteristics, including molecular and behavioral biomarkers, rather than on population averages. Personalized medicine is deeply connected to and dependent on data science, specifically machine learning (often named Artificial Intelligence in the mainstream media). While during recent years there has been a lot of enthusiasm about the potential of 'big data' and machine learning-based solutions, there exist only few examples that impact current clinical practice. The lack of impact on clinical practice can largely be attributed to insufficient performance of predictive models, difficulties to interpret complex model predictions, and lack of validation via prospective clinical trials that demonstrate a clear benefit compared to the standard of care. In this paper, we review the potential of state-of-the-art data science approaches for personalized medicine, discuss open challenges, and highlight directions that may help to overcome them in the future. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for an interdisciplinary effort, including data scientists, physicians, patient advocates, regulatory agencies, and health insurance organizations. Partially unrealistic expectations and concerns about data science-based solutions need to be better managed. In parallel, computational methods must advance more to provide direct benefit to clinical practice.

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 · 10.1186/s12916-018-1122-7

Cites

74 of 74 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

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

Show all 74 references

Cited by

See all 414

Metadata

Authors
Fröhlich, H., Balling, R., Beerenwinkel, N., Kohlbacher, O., Kumar, S., Lengauer, T., Maathuis, M. H., Moreau, Y., Murphy, S. A., Przytycka, T. M., Rebhan, M., Röst, H., Schuppert, A., Schwab, M., Spang, R., Stekhoven, D., Sun, J., Weber, A., Ziemek, D., & Zupan, B.
Venue
BMC Medicine
Published
2018-08-27
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
150-150
ISSN
1741-7015 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2888679364
Cited by
414
References
74
FWCI
6.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: From hype to reality: data science enabling personalized medicine. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s12916-018-1122-7
The paper
Fröhlich, H., Balling, R., Beerenwinkel, N., Kohlbacher, O., Kumar, S., Lengauer, T., Maathuis, M. H., Moreau, Y., Murphy, S. A., Przytycka, T. M., Rebhan, M., Röst, H., Schuppert, A., Schwab, M., Spang, R., Stekhoven, D., Sun, J., Weber, A., Ziemek, D., & Zupan, B. (2018). From hype to reality: data science enabling personalized medicine. BMC Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1122-7

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.