ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2025
Towards interpretable drug interaction prediction
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Computational approaches for drug-drug interaction prediction: a systematic review of data sources, modeling strategies, and evaluation frameworks.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- Machine learning models for drug-drug interaction prediction from computational discovery to clinical application.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) account for 17-23% of adverse drug reactions leading to hospitalization, with over 74,000 DDI-related events reported in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) during 2023. While recent computational methods focus on improving prediction accuracy, they suffer from high false-positive rates (>45%) and often function as black-box models without biological interpretability. Methods: We propose Dual-stage attention and Bayesian calibration with active learning Drug-Drug Interaction (DABI-DDI), a novel framework integrating: (1) A dual-stage attention mechanism with LSTM networks for capturing temporal dependencies in drug interactions, (2) a Bayesian calibration approach with beta-binomial modeling for refining interaction signals and reducing false positives, (3) an active learning strategy for efficient sample selection, and (4) a network pharmacology component linking drug interactions to underlying biological mechanisms. The model was validated using data from FAERS, DrugBank, and STRING databases, with comprehensive evaluation on both computational performance and biological interpretability. Results: DABI-DDI achieved superior performance (AUC = 0.947, PR_AUC = 0.944). Bayesian calibration improved adverse event detection accuracy (94% Conclusion: We present DABI-DDI, an integrated feature extraction framework that successfully addresses key challenges in DDIs prediction through three major innovations: Temporal pattern recognition, reducing false positives, and biological interpretability. Most importantly, the framework demonstrates strong clinical applicability by efficiently identifying high-risk drug combinations while providing mechanistic insights through enzyme-transporter pathway analysis. This approach bridges the gap between computational prediction and clinical understanding, offering a promising tool for safer drug combination therapy.
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.