MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

MDIPA: a microRNA–drug interaction prediction approach based on non-negative matrix factorization

2020· article· en· W3036062177 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Akbar Jamali, Anthony Kusalik, Fang‐Xiang Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencemicroRNASimilarity (geometry)Computational biologyMatrix decompositionIdentification (biology)Data miningArtificial intelligenceMachine learningBiologyGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MOTIVATION: Evidence has shown that microRNAs, one type of small biomolecule, regulate the expression level of genes and play an important role in the development or treatment of diseases. Drugs, as important chemical compounds, can interact with microRNAs and change their functions. The experimental identification of microRNA-drug interactions is time-consuming and expensive. Therefore, it is appealing to develop effective computational approaches for predicting microRNA-drug interactions. RESULTS: In this study, a matrix factorization-based method, called the microRNA-drug interaction prediction approach (MDIPA), is proposed for predicting unknown interactions among microRNAs and drugs. Specifically, MDIPA utilizes experimentally validated interactions between drugs and microRNAs, drug similarity and microRNA similarity to predict undiscovered interactions. A path-based microRNA similarity matrix is constructed, while the structural information of drugs is used to establish a drug similarity matrix. To evaluate its performance, our MDIPA is compared with four state-of-the-art prediction methods with an independent dataset and cross-validation. The results of both evaluation methods confirm the superior performance of MDIPA over other methods. Finally, the results of molecular docking in a case study with breast cancer confirm the efficacy of our approach. In conclusion, MDIPA can be effective in predicting potential microRNA-drug interactions. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: All code and data are freely available from https://github.com/AliJam82/MDIPA. 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.442
Threshold uncertainty score0.726

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioinformaticsSame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207