Comments
Big Pharma Tests Big-Data
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
Re: scientific method - ND
  • 10/15/2012 10:06:38 PM
NO RATINGS

From what I can gather, Noreen, that promise was at first given by the supporters of the genomics research -- which sadly didnt pan out as planned. Let's hope that big data can do a better job.

Re: scientific method - ND
  • 10/15/2012 2:55:49 PM
NO RATINGS

Wouldn't it be nice to know a medicine really had a good chance of working before you started taking it -- or dropping serious money to buy it?

Re: scientific method - ND
  • 10/15/2012 12:14:35 PM
NO RATINGS

OK.  I just want to raise the issue.  It's definitely a current problem, but yes and yes, if I've got it backwards; great.  I hope the day comes when there are individualized medicines.  Sounds like this is the beginning of that and hooray for it.

Re: scientific method - ND
  • 10/14/2012 8:25:23 PM
NO RATINGS

@Jeff, one aspect of this modeling is that it will hasten the arrival of "personalized" medicines, meaning drugs designed to work for certain conditions for people with very specific genetic makeups, so in other words, more and more smaller subsets of people will benefit. Not fewer.

Re: scientific method - ND
  • 10/12/2012 6:23:11 PM
NO RATINGS

@Jeff, Matt mentions elsewhere in this stream that the more drugs that go through testing the more people drugmakers will be able to help. In thinking about that in context of your concern, I would have to think that the quicker drugmakers are able to mine their data and develop effective models for delivering optimized results has got to be helpful in allowing them to expand those processes to more and more data. So you could sort of flip your concern on its head -- the better data, combined with higher-speed analytics, could broaden drugmakers' scope. They'll be able to do faster work on more and more data.

Re: scientific method - ND
  • 10/12/2012 3:58:05 PM
NO RATINGS

This is all well and fine.  I wish you could go back and ask him if there is some number of qualifing people that they say.  "not worth the investment."  I worry that better data will rule out research on diseases that affect to few people.  This is already a problem.  Data should be made available to some non-profit organization to chase down those.

Re: scientific method - ND
  • 10/12/2012 3:54:22 PM
NO RATINGS

How much do you think broader use of analytics will speed the regulatory approval process? Anyone want to venture a guess?

Re: scientific method - ND
  • 10/12/2012 3:32:21 PM
NO RATINGS

@Noreen, in regards to your concern, I think the important thing to remember (and hopefully I made this clear enough in the post) is that most of the modeling here will be dine initially at least to help results with clinical testing. And the more drugs that drugmakers are able to get through testing, the more people they can help in the real world with real world illnesses.

Big Pharma Analytics
  • 10/12/2012 2:16:09 PM
NO RATINGS

This is a highly competitive industry. CEOs and management are still a minority in understanding big data's potential to the organization. If they focus on core issues in this sector it will help them further develop a strong data driven culture / strategy

scientific method
  • 10/12/2012 9:15:43 AM
NO RATINGS

Certainly any empirical data that supports scientific decision making is a good thing. But I hope the data analysts are very very careful in their interpretations, because there are real people with real illnesses at the end of the process.



INFORMATION RESOURCES
ANALYTICS IN ACTION
CARTERTOONS
VIEW ALL +
QUICK POLL
VIEW ALL +