Drug repositioning based on comprehensive similarity measures and Bi-Random walk algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Drug repositioning, which aims to identify new indications for existing drugs, offers a promising alternative to reduce the total time and cost of traditional drug development. Many computational strategies for drug repositioning have been proposed, which are based on similarities among drugs and diseases. Current studies typically use either only drug-related properties (e.g. chemical structures) or only disease-related properties (e.g. phenotypes) to calculate drug or disease similarity, respectively, while not taking into account the influence of known drug-disease association information on the similarity measures. RESULTS: In this article, based on the assumption that similar drugs are normally associated with similar diseases and vice versa, we propose a novel computational method named MBiRW, which utilizes some comprehensive similarity measures and Bi-Random walk (BiRW) algorithm to identify potential novel indications for a given drug. By integrating drug or disease features information with known drug-disease associations, the comprehensive similarity measures are firstly developed to calculate similarity for drugs and diseases. Then drug similarity network and disease similarity network are constructed, and they are incorporated into a heterogeneous network with known drug-disease interactions. Based on the drug-disease heterogeneous network, BiRW algorithm is adopted to predict novel potential drug-disease associations. Computational experiment results from various datasets demonstrate that the proposed approach has reliable prediction performance and outperforms several recent computational drug repositioning approaches. Moreover, case studies of five selected drugs further confirm the superior performance of our method to discover potential indications for drugs practically. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: http://github.com//bioinfomaticsCSU/MBiRW CONTACT: jxwang@mail.csu.edu.cn SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".