A foundation model for clinician-centered drug repurposing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drug repurposing—identifying new therapeutic uses for approved drugs—is often a serendipitous and opportunistic endeavour to expand the use of drugs for new diseases. The clinical utility of drug-repurposing artificial intelligence (AI) models remains limited because these models focus narrowly on diseases for which some drugs already exist. Here we introduce TxGNN, a graph foundation model for zero-shot drug repurposing, identifying therapeutic candidates even for diseases with limited treatment options or no existing drugs. Trained on a medical knowledge graph, TxGNN uses a graph neural network and metric learning module to rank drugs as potential indications and contraindications for 17,080 diseases. When benchmarked against 8 methods, TxGNN improves prediction accuracy for indications by 49.2% and contraindications by 35.1% under stringent zero-shot evaluation. To facilitate model interpretation, TxGNN’s Explainer module offers transparent insights into multi-hop medical knowledge paths that form TxGNN’s predictive rationales. Human evaluation of TxGNN’s Explainer showed that TxGNN’s predictions and explanations perform encouragingly on multiple axes of performance beyond accuracy. Many of TxGNN’s new predictions align well with off-label prescriptions that clinicians previously made in a large healthcare system. TxGNN’s drug-repurposing predictions are accurate, consistent with off-label drug use, and can be investigated by human experts through multi-hop interpretable rationales. Trained on a medical knowledge graph, a foundation model is used to rank drugs as potential indications and contraindications across 17,080 diseases, identifying therapeutic candidates in a zero-shot framework even for diseases with limited treatment options or no existing drugs and outperforming existing models by a large margin.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".