Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41318563›Full record

ReviewBioData mining2025

Tree-based ensemble learning models for protein-protein interactions detection: a review and experimental evaluation.

Kamal Taha

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BioData mining, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
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

1 author.

Kamal TahaDepartment of Computer Science, Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi, UAE. Kamal.taha@ku.ac.ae.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationProtein-protein interactions (PPIs) are central to many biological processes, influencing cellular functions and offering potential therapeutic insights. The increasing availability of genomic and proteomic data has propelled computational approaches, particularly machine learning (ML), to the forefront of PPI prediction, addressing limitations of traditional experimental methods such as scalability and cost. This paper presents an in-depth review of modern ensemble learning models for PPI prediction, specifically focusing on XGBoost, Gradient Boosting, LightGBM, and Random Forest. Ensemble learning models are particularly noteworthy for their ability to surpass traditional approaches by leveraging the combined strengths of multiple base learners. Unlike previous reviews that often concentrate on theoretical comparisons or a limited selection of methods, this study offers a balanced analysis that includes both empirical findings and experimental evaluations. The review examines recent advancements in the field and assesses these models based on critical factors such as scalability, interpretability, accuracy, and efficiency, providing a structured framework to highlight nuanced differences among the techniques. SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTION: The article evaluates several ML techniques for PPI detection, with LightGBM and XGBoost emerging as the most effective methods due to their high accuracy and computational efficiency, particularly for large and complex datasets. Gradient Boosting and Random Forest also demonstrate strong performance, with Gradient Boosting excelling in capturing non-linear relationships and Random Forest offering robust interpretability. LightGBM stands out for its scalability and efficiency, while XGBoost benefits from built-in regularization to reduce overfitting.

resultsExperimental evaluations across three benchmark datasets-DIP, HPRD, and STRING-demonstrated that LightGBM consistently achieved the highest performance among all models, with average accuracy reaching up to 86%, and top sensitivity, specificity, and precision scores. XGBoost followed closely, showing strong generalization and robustness due to its regularization capabilities. Gradient Boosting provided competitive accuracy but lagged slightly in computational efficiency. Random Forest, while the most interpretable, showed comparatively lower sensitivity but maintained solid precision, highlighting its strength in minimizing false positives. Overall, LightGBM and XGBoost outperformed other methods in handling large, complex, and imbalanced PPI datasets. These results affirm the suitability of advanced ensemble learning techniques for enhancing PPI prediction and offer practical guidance on selecting models based on performance priorities and application constraints.

Identifiers

PMID41318563
PMCPMC12771752

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.