Computational Drug Repositioning with Random Walk on a Heterogeneous Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drug repositioning is an efficient and promising strategy to identify new indications for existing drugs, which can improve the productivity of traditional drug discovery and development. Rapid advances in high-throughput technologies have generated various types of biomedical data over the past decades, which lay the foundations for furthering the development of computational drug repositioning approaches. Although many researches have tried to improve the repositioning accuracy by integrating information from multiple sources and different levels, it is still appealing to further investigate how to efficiently exploit valuable data for drug repositioning. In this study, we propose an efficient approach, Random Walk on a Heterogeneous Network for Drug Repositioning (RWHNDR), to prioritize candidate drugs for diseases. First, an integrated heterogeneous network is constructed by combining multiple sources including drugs, drug targets, diseases and disease genes data. Then, a random walk model is developed to capture the global information of the heterogeneous network. RWHNDR takes advantage of drug targets and disease genes data more comprehensively for drug repositioning. The experiment results show that our approach can achieve better performance, compared with other state-of-the-art approaches which prioritized candidate drugs based on multi-source data.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".