Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32308816›Full record

ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2019

Non-Negative Matrix Factorization for Drug Repositioning: Experiments with the repoDB Dataset.

Gokhan Bakal, Halil Kilicoglu, Ramakanth Kavuluru

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors.

Gokhan BakalUniversity of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Halil KilicogluNational Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD.
Ramakanth KavuluruUniversity of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.

Funding

Kentucky Center for Clinical and Translational ScienceUL1TR001998 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY · PI HARTMANN, KATHERINE E, KERN, PHILIP A · 2016 to 2025
$34.2M
From Syntactic Relations to Semantic Predications: Porting Open Information Extraction to BiomedicineR21LM012274 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY · PI KAVULURU, VENKATA NAGA RAMAKANTH · 2016 to 2017
$374k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001998NLM NIH HHS R21 LM012274
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computational methods for drug repositioning are gaining mainstream attention with the availability of experimental gene expression datasets and manually curated relational information in knowledge bases. When building repurpos-ing tools, a fundamental limitation is the lack of gold standard datasets that contain realistic true negative examples of drug-disease pairs that were shown to be non-indications. To address this gap, the repoDB dataset was created in 2017 as a first of its kind realistic resource to benchmark drug repositioning methods - its positive examples are drawn from FDA approved indications and negatives examples are derivedfrom failed clinical trials. In this paper, we present the first effort for repositioning that directly tests against repoDB instances. By using hand-curated drug-disease indications from the UMLS Metathesaurus and automatically extracted relations from the SemMedDB database, we employ non-negative matrix factorization (NMF) methods to recover repoDB positive indications. Among recoverable approved indications, our NMF methods achieve 96% recall with 80% precision providing further evidence that hand-curated knowledge and matrix completion methods can be exploited for hypothesis generation.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualDatasets as TopicDrug RepositioningAlgorithmsKnowledge BasesMathematical ConceptsUnified Medical Language System

Identifiers

PMID32308816
PMCPMC7153111

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.