SDTRLS: Predicting Drug-Target Interactions for Complex Diseases Based on Chemical Substructures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well known that drug discovery for complex diseases via biological experiments is a time-consuming and expensive process. Alternatively, the computational methods provide a low-cost and high-efficiency way for predicting drug-target interactions (DTIs) from biomolecular networks. However, the current computational methods mainly deal with DTI predictions of known drugs; there are few methods for large-scale prediction of failed drugs and new chemical entities that are currently stored in some biological databases may be effective for other diseases compared with their originally targeted diseases. In this study, we propose a method (called SDTRLS) which predicts DTIs through RLS-Kron model with chemical substructure similarity fusion and Gaussian Interaction Profile (GIP) kernels. SDTRLS can be an effective predictor for targets of old drugs, failed drugs, and new chemical entities from large-scale biomolecular network databases. Our computational experiments show that SDTRLS outperforms the state-of-the-art SDTNBI method; specifically, in the G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) external validation, the maximum and the average AUC values of SDTRLS are 0.842 and 0.826, respectively, which are superior to those of SDTNBI, which are 0.797 and 0.766, respectively. This study provides an important basis for new drug development and drug repositioning based on biomolecular networks.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".