A novel graph mining approach to predict and evaluate food-drug interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Food-drug interactions (FDIs) arise when nutritional dietary consumption regulates biochemical mechanisms involved in drug metabolism. This study proposes FDMine, a novel systematic framework that models the FDI problem as a homogenous graph. Our dataset consists of 788 unique approved small molecule drugs with metabolism-related drug-drug interactions and 320 unique food items, composed of 563 unique compounds. The potential number of interactions is 87,192 and 92,143 for disjoint and joint versions of the graph. We defined several similarity subnetworks comprising food-drug similarity, drug-drug similarity, and food-food similarity networks. A unique part of the graph involves encoding the food composition as a set of nodes and calculating a content contribution score. To predict new FDIs, we considered several link prediction algorithms and various performance metrics, including the precision@top (top 1%, 2%, and 5%) of the newly predicted links. The shortest path-based method has achieved a precision of 84%, 60% and 40% for the top 1%, 2% and 5% of FDIs identified, respectively. We validated the top FDIs predicted using FDMine to demonstrate its applicability, and we relate therapeutic anti-inflammatory effects of food items informed by FDIs. FDMine is publicly available to support clinicians and researchers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".