A review of biomedical datasets relating to drug discovery: a knowledge graph perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drug discovery and development is a complex and costly process. Machine learning approaches are being investigated to help improve the effectiveness and speed of multiple stages of the drug discovery pipeline. Of these, those that use Knowledge Graphs (KG) have promise in many tasks, including drug repurposing, drug toxicity prediction and target gene-disease prioritization. In a drug discovery KG, crucial elements including genes, diseases and drugs are represented as entities, while relationships between them indicate an interaction. However, to construct high-quality KGs, suitable data are required. In this review, we detail publicly available sources suitable for use in constructing drug discovery focused KGs. We aim to help guide machine learning and KG practitioners who are interested in applying new techniques to the drug discovery field, but who may be unfamiliar with the relevant data sources. The datasets are selected via strict criteria, categorized according to the primary type of information contained within and are considered based upon what information could be extracted to build a KG. We then present a comparative analysis of existing public drug discovery KGs and an evaluation of selected motivating case studies from the literature. Additionally, we raise numerous and unique challenges and issues associated with the domain and its datasets, while also highlighting key future research directions. We hope this review will motivate KGs use in solving key and emerging questions in the drug discovery domain.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".