ArticleScientific reports2025
Enhanced drug-drug interaction extraction from biomedical text using deep learning-based sentence representations.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A parallel dual-stream state-space module for reliable and efficient biomedical relation extraction.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Multimodal Collaborative Modeling of Molecular Structures and Biomedical Text for Accurate Drug-Drug Interaction Extraction.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Drug-drug interaction identification using large language models.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
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
Abstract
The fundamental issue with drug-drug interactions (DDIs) is that they cannot be ignored or overlooked since negative drug reactions and the use of medical services as a result are detrimental to patients and increase healthcare expenses. Conventional machine learning (ML) applications to DDI extraction, such as logistic regression or support vector machines, have been less successful, as the relationships in biomedical text are difficult to describe comprehensively. Recent advances in deep learning and transformer-based models offer improved contextual insight, but their resource-intensive demands may pose a barrier to scalability. We introduce CNN-DDI, a convolutional neural network model that can extract DDIs in biomedical text efficiently. On the SemEval-2013 dataset, we performed a comparative analysis of the classical models of ML (Logistic Regression, SVM, Random Forest, Naive Bayes, Decision Trees), transformer-based models (BioBERT, RoBERTa, DeBERTa, ELECTRA, DistilBERT), and the designed CNN-DDI. All the models were trained under similar procedures of parameter tuning and preprocessing. When comparing the models, CNN-DDI shows the highest performance with 86.81 percent overall accuracy and 83.81 percent F1-score, outperforming transformer-based models (best F1-score 81.41%, BioBERT-BiLSTM) as well as traditional ML models (best F1-score 77.09 percent, Logistic Regression). CNN-DDI integrates a competitive performance and fewer computer requirements, making it a feasible option in large-scale biomedical text mining.
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.