The use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in biomedical and clinical settings can disrupt the traditional doctor–patient relationship, which is based on trust and transparency in medical advice and therapeutic decisions. When the diagnosis or selection of a therapy is no longer made solely by the physician, but to a significant extent by a machine using algorithms, decisions become nontransparent. Skill learning is the most common application of machine learning algorithms in clinical decision making. These are a class of very general algorithms (artificial neural networks, classifiers, etc.), which are tuned based on examples to optimize the classification of new, unseen cases. It is pointless to ask for an explanation for a decision. A detailed understanding of the mathematical details of an AI algorithm may be possible for experts in statistics or computer science. However, when it comes to the fate of human beings, this “developer’s explanation” is not sufficient. The concept of explainable AI (XAI) as a solution to this problem is attracting increasing scientific and regulatory interest. This review focuses on the requirement that XAIs must be able to explain in detail the decisions made by the AI to the experts in the field.

The collection of increasing amounts of data in health care has become relevant for pain therapy and research. This poses problems for analyses with classical approaches, which is why artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) methods are being included into pain research. The current literature on AI and ML in the context of pain research was automatically searched and manually curated. Common machine learning methods and pain settings covered were evaluated. Further focus was on the origin of the publication and technical details, such as the included sample sizes of the studies analyzed with ML. Machine learning was identified in 475 publications from 18 countries, with 79% of the studies published since 2019. Most addressed pain conditions included low back pain, musculoskeletal disorders, osteoarthritis, neuropathic pain, and inflammatory pain. Most used ML algorithms included random forests and support vector machines; however, deep learning was used when medical images were involved in the diagnosis of painful conditions. Cohort sizes ranged from 11 to 2,164,872, with a mode at n = 100; however, deep learning required larger data sets often only available from medical images. Artificial intelligence and ML, in particular, are increasingly being applied to pain-related data. This report presents application examples and highlights advantages and limitations, such as the ability to process complex data, sometimes, but not always, at the cost of big data requirements or black-box decisions.

Interactions of drugs with the classical epigenetic mechanism of DNA methylation or histone modification are increasingly being elucidated mechanistically and used to develop novel classes of epigenetic therapeutics. A data science approach is used to synthesize current knowledge on the pharmacological implications of epigenetic regulation of gene expression. Computer-aided knowledge discovery for epigenetic implications of current approved or investigational drugs was performed by querying information from multiple publicly available gold-standard sources to (i) identify enzymes involved in classical epigenetic processes, (ii) screen original biomedical scientific publications including bibliometric analyses, (iii) identify drugs that interact with epigenetic enzymes, including their additional non-epigenetic targets, and (iv) analyze computational functional genomics of drugs with epigenetic interactions. PubMed database search yielded 3051 hits on epigenetics and drugs, starting in 1992 and peaking in 2016. Annual citations increased to a plateau in 2000 and show a downward trend since 2008. Approved and investigational drugs in the DrugBank database included 122 compounds that interacted with 68 unique epigenetic enzymes. Additional molecular functions modulated by these drugs included other enzyme interactions, whereas modulation of ion channels or G-protein-coupled receptors were underrepresented. Epigenetic interactions included (i) drug-induced modulation of DNA methylation, (ii) drug-induced modulation of histone conformations, and (iii) epigenetic modulation of drug effects by interference with pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics. Interactions of epigenetic molecular functions and drugs are mutual. Recent research activities on the discovery and development of novel epigenetic therapeutics have passed successfully, whereas epigenetic effects of non-epigenetic drugs or epigenetically induced changes in the targets of common drugs have not yet received the necessary systematic attention in the context of pharmacological plasticity.

Background: Fold change is a common metric in biomedical research for quantifying group differences in omics variables. However, inconsistent calculation methods and inadequate reporting lead to discrepancies in results. This study evaluated various fold-change calculation methods aiming at a recommendation of a preferred approach. Methods: The primary distinction in fold-change calculations lies in defining group expected values for log ratio computation. To challenge method interchangeability in a “stress test” scenario, we generated diverse artificial data sets with varying distributions (identity, uniform, normal, log-normal, and a mixture of these) and compared calculated fold-changes to known values. Additionally, we analyzed a multi-omics biomedical data set to estimate to what extent the findings apply to real-world data. Results: Using arithmetic means as expected values for treatment and reference groups yielded inaccurate fold-change values more frequently than other methods, particularly when subgroup distributions and/or standard deviations differed significantly. Conclusions: The arithmetic mean method, often perceived as standard or picked without considering alternatives, is inferior to other definitions of the group expected value. Methods using median, geometric mean, or paired fold-change combinations are more robust against violations of equal variances or dissimilar group distributions. Adhering to methods less sensitive to data distribution without trade-offs and accurately reporting calculation methods in scientific reports is a reasonable practice to ensure correct interpretation and reproducibility.

Clinical pharmacology research has always involved computational analysis. With the abundance of drug-related data available, the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) methods has emerged as a promising way to enhance clinical pharmacology research. Based on an accepted definition of clinical pharmacology as a field of research dealing with all aspects of drug-human interactions, the analysis included publications from institutes specializing in clinical pharmacology. Research topics and the most used machine learning methods in clinical pharmacology were retrieved from the PubMed database and summarized. ML was identified in 674 publications attributed to clinical pharmacology research, with a significant increase in publication activity over the last decade. Notable research topics addressed by ML/AI included Covid-19-related clinical pharmacology research, clinical neuropharmacology, drug safety and risk assessment, clinical pharmacology related to cancer research, and antimicrobial and antiviral research unrelated to Covid-19. In terms of ML methods, neural networks, random forests, and support vector machines were frequently mentioned in the abstracts of the retrieved papers. ML, and AI in general, is increasingly being used in various research areas within clinical pharmacology. This report presents specific examples of applications and highlights the most used ML methods.

The opioid system is involved in the control of pain, reward, addictive behaviors and vegetative effects. Opioids exert their pharmacological actions through the agonistic binding at opioid receptors and variation in the coding genes has been found to modulate opioid receptor expression or signaling. However, a limited selection of functional opioid receptor variants is perceived as insufficient in providing a genetic diagnosis of clinical phenotypes and therefore, unrestricted access to opioid receptor genetics is required. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) workflow was based on a custom AmpliSeq™ panel and designed for sequencing of human genes related to the opioid receptor group (OPRM1, OPRD1, OPRK1, SIGMA1, OPRL1) on an Ion PGM™ Sequencer. A cohort of 79 previously studied chronic pain patients was screened to evaluate and validate the detection of exomic sequences of the coding genes with 25 base pair exon padding. In-silico analysis was performed using SNP and Variation Suite® software. The amplicons covered approximately 90% of the target sequence. A median of 2.54×106 reads per run was obtained generating a total of 35,447 nucleotide reads from each DNA sample. This identified approximately 100 chromosome loci where nucleotides deviated from the reference sequence GRCh37 hg19, including functional variants such as the OPRM1 rs1799971 SNP (118 A>G) as the most scientifically regarded variant or rs563649 SNP coding for μ-opioid receptor splice variants. Correspondence between NGS and Sanger derived nucleotide sequences was 100%. Results suggested that the NGS approach based on AmpliSeq™ libraries and Ion PGM sequencing is a highly efficient mutation detection method. It is suitable for large-scale sequencing of opioid receptor genes. The method includes the variants studied so far for functional associations and adds a large amount of genetic information as a basis for complete analysis of human opioid receptor genetics and its functional consequences.