Back

Normalization of Drug and Therapeutic Concepts with TheraPy

Cannon, M.; Stevenson, J.; Kuzma, K.; Kiwala, S.; Warner, J.; Griffith, O. L.; Griffith, M.; Wagner, A. H.

2023-08-02 health informatics
10.1101/2023.07.27.23293245 medRxiv
Show abstract

Working with therapeutic terminology in the field of medicine can be challenging due to both the number of ways terms can be addressed and the ambiguity associated with different naming strategies. A therapeutic concept can be identified across many facets from ontologies and vocabularies of varying focus, including natural product names, chemical structures, development codes, generic names, brand names, product formulations, or treatment regimens. This diversity of nomenclature makes therapeutic terminology difficult to manage and harmonize. As the number and complexity of available therapeutic ontologies continues to increase, the need for harmonized cross-resource mappings is becoming increasingly apparent. Harmonized concept mappings will enable the linking together of like-concepts despite source-dependent differences in data structure or semantic representation. To support these mappings, we introduce TheraPy, a Python package and web API that constructs stable, searchable merged concepts for drugs and therapeutic terminologies using publicly available resources and thesauri. By using a directed graph approach, TheraPy can capture commonly used aliases, trade names, annotations, and associations for any given therapeutic and combine them under a single merged concept record. Using this approach, we found that TheraPy tends to normalize therapeutic concepts to their underlying active ingredients (excluding non-drug therapeutics, e.g. radiation therapy, biologics), and unifies all available descriptors regardless of ontological origin. In this report, we highlight the creation of 16,069 unique merged therapeutic concepts from 9 distinct sources using TheraPy. Further, we analyze rates of normalization for therapeutic terms taken from publicly available vocabularies.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.