ArticleBioinformatics advances2024
Evaluating GPT and BERT models for protein-protein interaction identification in biomedical text.
Article in Bioinformatics advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence agents for biological research: a survey.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Evidence-based AI: from trailblazer to trustblazer?Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Longitudinal big biological data in the AI era.Molecular systems biology · 2025Review
- The influence of prompt engineering on large language models for protein-protein interaction identification in biomedical literature.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Cancer Vaccine Adjuvant Name Recognition from Biomedical Literature using Large Language Models.ArXiv · 2025Article
- From text to traits: exploring the role of large language models in plant breeding.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Review
- ArcTEX-a novel clinical data enrichment pipeline to support real-world evidence oncology studies.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Multimodal knowledge expansion widget powered by plant protein phosphorylation database and ChatGPT.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Challenges in predicting protein-protein interactions of understudied viruses: Arenavirus-human interactions.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Article
- FuncFetch: an LLM-assisted workflow enables mining thousands of enzyme-substrate interactions from published manuscripts.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- An Accurate and Efficient Approach to Knowledge Extraction from Scientific Publications Using Structured Ontology Models, Graph Neural Networks, and Large Language Models.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Improving the Identification of Diabetic Retinopathy and Related Conditions in the Electronic Health Record Using Natural Language Processing Methods.Ophthalmology scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Motivation: Detecting protein-protein interactions (PPIs) is crucial for understanding genetic mechanisms, disease pathogenesis, and drug design. As biomedical literature continues to grow rapidly, there is an increasing need for automated and accurate extraction of these interactions to facilitate scientific discovery. Pretrained language models, such as generative pretrained transformers and bidirectional encoder representations from transformers, have shown promising results in natural language processing tasks. Results: We evaluated the performance of PPI identification using multiple transformer-based models across three manually curated gold-standard corpora: Learning Language in Logic with 164 interactions in 77 sentences, Human Protein Reference Database with 163 interactions in 145 sentences, and Interaction Extraction Performance Assessment with 335 interactions in 486 sentences. Models based on bidirectional encoder representations achieved the best overall performance, with BioBERT achieving the highest recall of 91.95% and F1 score of 86.84% on the Learning Language in Logic dataset. Despite not being explicitly trained for biomedical texts, GPT-4 showed commendable performance, comparable to the bidirectional encoder models. Specifically, GPT-4 achieved the highest precision of 88.37%, a recall of 85.14%, and an F1 score of 86.49% on the same dataset. These results suggest that GPT-4 can effectively detect protein interactions from text, offering valuable applications in mining biomedical literature. Availability and implementation: The source code and datasets used in this study are available at https://github.com/hurlab/PPI-GPT-BERT.
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.