Drug target interaction predictions using PU- Leaming under different experimental setting for four formulations namely known drug target pair prediction, drug prediction, target prediction and unknown drug target pair prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predicting new drug target interactions experimentally through wet lab experiments is time as well as resource intensive. In general, drug-target interaction prediction problem leads to drug discovery, drug repositioning and uncovers interesting patterns in chemogenomics research. Drug and target represent heterogeneous nodes within a network of interactions. Presence of an edge between the nodes indicates a positive interaction whereas an absence suggests an unknown interaction. Classification based machine learning algorithms are heavily applied in this area of research. Classification algorithms need positive as well as negative data to yield optimized results. The major problem in this field is lack of negative data because the data that are found in the public databases are positive interaction samples. Considering unknown drug target pairs as negative data may cause severe consequences for the prediction performance. Thereby, we propose a positive un-labelled (PU) learning- based approach that uses one class support vector machine technique as the learning algorithm. The algorithm learns the positive distribution from the unified feature vector space of drugs and targets and regards unknown pairs as unlabeled instead of labelling them as negative pairs. Additionally, we use 4860 Klekota Roth fingerprint + 881 PubChem fingerprint as a high dimensional and highly discriminative feature vector representation for drugs. To represent protein features, we create a protein-motif matrix based on the sliding window score that records the probability of a motif pattern occurring within a given protein sequence. Also, we separately evaluate the prediction performance using 5-fold nested cross- validation under different experimental setting for each of the four formulations: 1) Known drug-target pair,2) Drug prediction, 3) Target prediction and 4) Unknown drug target pair. We show that our approach yields the best AUC score over previous benchmark techniques and outperforms most of the recent works based on one class classifiers and PU-based learning.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".