AI Peer Review
Better reviews, better science. Calibrated, citation-grounded reviews with humans in the loop, kept yours to edit, share, and publish.
In this work, we model the risk of hospitalization for a large number of drug-disease combinations. Our methodology is akin to genome-wide association studies (GWAS), in which a simple model is used to estimate the effect of a large number of loci in a hypothesis-free manner. As in GWAS, this screen risks spurious relationships and requires further analysis, but complements target-driven repurposing.
The GWAS analogy is one of the clearest framings in the paper. It belongs in the abstract. A short sentence on the broad enumeration step and the multiplicity correction does enough to place the work as a screen, not another pair-specific observational study.
Humans in the loop
Our reviews update with your comments. Iterate together until the review completely reflects your read.
Consistent, benchmarked, multi-faceted scores
Publications are graded based on multiple aspects, including the novelty of the work, the quality of the presentation, and experimental rigor.
Research intelligence
We evaluate thousands of publications every week.
See our reports on
Some of this week's best preprints
More on rankings| # | Paper | Score | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Ameya Joshi et al.Computer Vision | 1 | Ameya Joshi et al.Computer Vision | 82.2 | |
| 2 | 80.2 | |||
Khanh D. Nguyen et al.Robotics | 3 | Khanh D. Nguyen et al.Robotics | 79.8 | |
Jikun Wang et al.Computer Architecture | 4 | Jikun Wang et al.Computer Architecture | 78.9 | |
| 5 | 78.3 | |||
Michael J. Bommarito IIOperating Systems | 6 | Michael J. Bommarito IIOperating Systems | 77.4 | |
Ramiro N. Deo-Campo VuongOptimization | 7 | Ramiro N. Deo-Campo VuongOptimization | 77.1 | |
Priyansh Bhatnagar et al.Machine Learning | 8 | Priyansh Bhatnagar et al.Machine Learning | 76.8 | |
Mohamed Khalil Kiri et al.Machine Learning | 9 | Mohamed Khalil Kiri et al.Machine Learning | 76.5 | |
Artem Matveev et al.Information Retrieval | 10 | Artem Matveev et al.Information Retrieval | 76.1 |
Get your work graded
Your first review is free. Pay as you go or subscribe for additional features.