ArticleBMC bioinformatics2021
On the robustness of generalization of drug-drug interaction models.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting unknown mammalian viral hosts with Dynamic Positive-Unlabeled learning.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Applications and Challenges of Artificial Intelligence and Big Data in Drug Regulation.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026Review
- DistRMI: a deep distance-aware neural network for explainable RNA loop motif-small molecule interaction prediction.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- HCDT 2.0: A Highly Confident Drug-Target Database for Experimentally Validated Genes, RNAs, and Pathways.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Learning self-supervised molecular representations for drug-drug interaction prediction.BMC bioinformatics · 2024Article
- Therapies for Tau-associated neurodegenerative disorders: targeting molecules, synapses, and cells.Neural regeneration research · 2023Article
- HCDT: an integrated highly confident drug-target resource.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDeep learning methods are a proven commodity in many fields and endeavors. One of these endeavors is predicting the presence of adverse drug-drug interactions (DDIs). The models generated can predict, with reasonable accuracy, the phenotypes arising from the drug interactions using their molecular structures. Nevertheless, this task requires improvement to be truly useful. Given the complexity of the predictive task, an extensive benchmarking on structure-based models for DDIs prediction was performed to evaluate their drawbacks and advantages.
resultsWe rigorously tested various structure-based models that predict drug interactions using different splitting strategies to simulate different real-world scenarios. In addition to the effects of different training and testing setups on the robustness and generalizability of the models, we then explore the contribution of traditional approaches such as multitask learning and data augmentation.
conclusionStructure-based models tend to generalize poorly to unseen drugs despite their ability to identify new DDIs among drugs seen during training accurately. Indeed, they efficiently propagate information between known drugs and could be valuable for discovering new DDIs in a database. However, these models will most probably fail when exposed to unknown drugs. While multitask learning does not help in our case to solve the problem, the use of data augmentation does at least mitigate it. Therefore, researchers must be cautious of the bias of the random evaluation scheme, especially if their goal is to discover new DDIs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.