Protein interaction network constructing based on text mining and reinforcement learning with application to prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Constructing interaction network from biomedical texts is a very important and interesting work. The authors take advantage of text mining and reinforcement learning approaches to establish protein interaction network. Considering the high computational efficiency of co-occurrence-based interaction extraction approaches and high precision of linguistic patterns approaches, the authors propose an interaction extracting algorithm where they utilise frequently used linguistic patterns to extract the interactions from texts and then find out interactions from extended unprocessed texts under the basic idea of co-occurrence approach, meanwhile they discount the interaction extracted from extended texts. They put forward a reinforcement learning-based algorithm to establish a protein interaction network, where nodes represent proteins and edges denote interactions. During the evolutionary process, a node selects another node and the attained reward determines which predicted interaction should be reinforced. The topology of the network is updated by the agent until an optimal network is formed. They used texts downloaded from PubMed to construct a prostate cancer protein interaction network by the proposed methods. The results show that their method brought out pretty good matching rate. Network topology analysis results also demonstrate that the curves of node degree distribution, node degree probability and probability distribution of constructed network accord with those of the scale-free network well.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".