DTI-MLCD: predicting drug-target interactions using multi-label learning with community detection method
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".