Predicting drug-target interactions using multi-label learning with community detection method (DTI-MLCD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Identifying drug-target interactions (DTIs) is an important step for drug discovery and drug repositioning. To reduce heavily experiment cost, booming machine learning has been applied to this field and developed many computational methods, especially binary classification methods. However, there is still much room for improvement in the performance of current methods. Multi-label learning can reduce difficulties faced by binary classification learning with high predictive performance, and has not been explored extensively. The key challenge it faces is the exponential-sized output space, and considering label correlations can help it. Thus, we facilitate the multi-label classification by introducing community detection methods for DTIs prediction, named DTI-MLCD. On the other hand, we updated the gold standard data set proposed in 2008 and still in use today. The proposed DTI-MLCD is performed on the gold standard data set before and after the update, and shows the superiority than other classical machine learning methods and other benchmark proposed methods, which confirms the efficiency of it. The data and code for this study can be found at https://github.com/a96123155/DTI-MLCD .
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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".