Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29783926›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2018

Neural networks for link prediction in realistic biomedical graphs: a multi-dimensional evaluation of graph embedding-based approaches.

Gamal Crichton, Yufan Guo, Sampo Pyysalo, Anna Korhonen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Knowledge-Based Biomedical Data Science.Annual review of biomedical data science · 2020
    Article
  13. Tracking and Mining the COVID-19 Research Literature.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Constructing knowledge graphs and their biomedical applications.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2020
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Gamal CrichtonLanguage Technology Laboratory, TAL, University of Cambridge, 9 West Road, Cambridge, CB39DB, UK. gkoc2@cam.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-3036-0811
Yufan GuoLanguage Technology Laboratory, TAL, University of Cambridge, 9 West Road, Cambridge, CB39DB, UK.
Sampo PyysaloLanguage Technology Laboratory, TAL, University of Cambridge, 9 West Road, Cambridge, CB39DB, UK.
Anna KorhonenLanguage Technology Laboratory, TAL, University of Cambridge, 9 West Road, Cambridge, CB39DB, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/M013049/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLink prediction in biomedical graphs has several important applications including predicting Drug-Target Interactions (DTI), Protein-Protein Interaction (PPI) prediction and Literature-Based Discovery (LBD). It can be done using a classifier to output the probability of link formation between nodes. Recently several works have used neural networks to create node representations which allow rich inputs to neural classifiers. Preliminary works were done on this and report promising results. However they did not use realistic settings like time-slicing, evaluate performances with comprehensive metrics or explain when or why neural network methods outperform. We investigated how inputs from four node representation algorithms affect performance of a neural link predictor on random- and time-sliced biomedical graphs of real-world sizes (∼ 6 million edges) containing information relevant to DTI, PPI and LBD. We compared the performance of the neural link predictor to those of established baselines and report performance across five metrics.

resultsIn random- and time-sliced experiments when the neural network methods were able to learn good node representations and there was a negligible amount of disconnected nodes, those approaches outperformed the baselines. In the smallest graph (∼ 15,000 edges) and in larger graphs with approximately 14% disconnected nodes, baselines such as Common Neighbours proved a justifiable choice for link prediction. At low recall levels (∼ 0.3) the approaches were mostly equal, but at higher recall levels across all nodes and average performance at individual nodes, neural network approaches were superior. Analysis showed that neural network methods performed well on links between nodes with no previous common neighbours; potentially the most interesting links. Additionally, while neural network methods benefit from large amounts of data, they require considerable amounts of computational resources to utilise them.

conclusionsOur results indicate that when there is enough data for the neural network methods to use and there are a negligible amount of disconnected nodes, those approaches outperform the baselines. At low recall levels the approaches are mostly equal but at higher recall levels and average performance at individual nodes, neural network approaches are superior. Performance at nodes without common neighbours which indicate more unexpected and perhaps more useful links account for this.

Indexed as

Neural Networks, ComputerAlgorithmsDrug DiscoveryKnowledge DiscoveryProtein Interaction MappingData miningDrug-target interactionLink predictionLiterature-based discoveryNeural networks

Identifiers

PMID29783926
PMCPMC5963080

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.