Understanding the performance of knowledge graph embeddings in drug discovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowledge Graphs (KG) and associated Knowledge Graph Embedding (KGE) models have recently begun to be explored in the context of drug discovery and have the potential to assist in key challenges such as target identification. In the drug discovery domain, KGs can be employed as part of a process which can result in lab-based experiments being performed, or impact on other decisions, incurring significant time and financial costs and most importantly, ultimately influencing patient healthcare. For KGE models to have impact in this domain, a better understanding of not only of performance, but also the various factors which determine it, is required. In this study we investigate, over the course of many thousands of experiments, the predictive performance of five KGE models on two public drug discovery-oriented KGs. Our goal is not to focus on the best overall model or configuration, instead we take a deeper look at how performance can be affected by changes in the training setup, choice of hyperparameters, model parameter initialisation seed and different splits of the datasets. Our results highlight that these factors have significant impact on performance and can even affect the ranking of models. Indeed these factors should be reported along with model architectures to ensure complete reproducibility and fair comparisons of future work, and we argue this is critical for the acceptance of use, and impact of KGEs in a biomedical setting.
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 | 0.009 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".