DTI-MLCD: predicting drug-target interactions using multi-label learning with community detection method
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying drug-target interactions (DTIs) is an important step for drug discovery and drug repositioning. To reduce the experimental cost, a large number of computational approaches have been proposed for this task. The machine learning-based models, especially binary classification models, have been developed to predict whether a drug-target pair interacts or not. However, there is still much room for improvement in the performance of current methods. Multi-label learning can overcome some difficulties caused by single-label learning in order to improve the predictive performance. The key challenge faced by multi-label learning is the exponential-sized output space, and considering label correlations can help to overcome this challenge. In this paper, we facilitate multi-label classification by introducing community detection methods for DTI prediction, named DTI-MLCD. Moreover, we updated the gold standard data set by adding 15,000 more positive DTI samples in comparison to the data set, which has widely been used by most of previously published DTI prediction methods since 2008. The proposed DTI-MLCD is applied to both data sets, demonstrating its superiority over other machine learning methods and several existing methods. The data sets and source code of this study are freely available 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it