MDF-SA-DDI: predicting drug–drug interaction events based on multi-source drug fusion, multi-source feature fusion and transformer self-attention mechanism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the main problems with the joint use of multiple drugs is that it may cause adverse drug interactions and side effects that damage the body. Therefore, it is important to predict potential drug interactions. However, most of the available prediction methods can only predict whether two drugs interact or not, whereas few methods can predict interaction events between two drugs. Accurately predicting interaction events of two drugs is more useful for researchers to study the mechanism of the interaction of two drugs. In the present study, we propose a novel method, MDF-SA-DDI, which predicts drug-drug interaction (DDI) events based on multi-source drug fusion, multi-source feature fusion and transformer self-attention mechanism. MDF-SA-DDI is mainly composed of two parts: multi-source drug fusion and multi-source feature fusion. First, we combine two drugs in four different ways and input the combined drug feature representation into four different drug fusion networks (Siamese network, convolutional neural network and two auto-encoders) to obtain the latent feature vectors of the drug pairs, in which the two auto-encoders have the same structure, and their main difference is the number of neurons in the input layer of the two auto-encoders. Then, we use transformer blocks that include self-attention mechanism to perform latent feature fusion. We conducted experiments on three different tasks with two datasets. On the small dataset, the area under the precision-recall-curve (AUPR) and F1 scores of our method on task 1 reached 0.9737 and 0.8878, respectively, which were better than the state-of-the-art method. On the large dataset, the AUPR and F1 scores of our method on task 1 reached 0.9773 and 0.9117, respectively. In task 2 and task 3 of two datasets, our method also achieved the same or better performance as the state-of-the-art method. More importantly, the case studies on five DDI events are conducted and achieved satisfactory performance. The source codes and data are available at https://github.com/ShenggengLin/MDF-SA-DDI.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".