2021
DOI: 10.1155/2021/5599263
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Drug-Target Interaction Prediction via Dual Laplacian Graph Regularized Logistic Matrix Factorization

Abstract: Drug-target interactions provide useful information for biomedical drug discovery as well as drug development. However, it is costly and time consuming to find drug-target interactions by experimental methods. As a result, developing computational approaches for this task is necessary and has practical significance. In this study, we establish a novel dual Laplacian graph regularized logistic matrix factorization model for drug-target interaction prediction, referred to as DLGrLMF briefly. Specifically, DLGrLM… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
3
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
1
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 53 publications
1
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This phenomenon with AUROC is known to occur when the number of positive labels is much lesser than that of negative labels, and AUPR is more appropriate than AUROC. 17,37,38 Through these comparisons, NRLMF was found to perform better in CVS1 than in CVS2 and CVS3, which was consistent with the findings of the original study reviewed in the present study. 7 However, evaluation of CVS3 using the drug−protein benchmark dataset showed poor results for all methods.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 90%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This phenomenon with AUROC is known to occur when the number of positive labels is much lesser than that of negative labels, and AUPR is more appropriate than AUROC. 17,37,38 Through these comparisons, NRLMF was found to perform better in CVS1 than in CVS2 and CVS3, which was consistent with the findings of the original study reviewed in the present study. 7 However, evaluation of CVS3 using the drug−protein benchmark dataset showed poor results for all methods.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 90%
“…CVS1, CVS2, and CVS3 were settings for the prediction of new pairs, drugs, and targets, respectively. These three performance evaluation scenarios were found to be used widely. This evaluation metric was the most used throughout the survey.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are three branches of machine learning methods for predicting DTIs: similarity-based methods, deep learning methods, and feature selection methods. Similarity/distance-based methods mainly use inter-sample similarity or distance [20][21][22]. Yamanishi et al [23] developed a bipartite graph model to predict DTIs using a supervised approach to learn known drug-target relationships [24,25].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are three branches of machine learning methods for predicting DTIs: similarity-based methods, deep learning methods and feature selection methods. Similarity/distance-based methods mainly utilize inter-sample similarity or distance [18,19,20] . Yamanishi et al [21] developed a bipartite graph model to predict drug-target interactions, using a supervised approach to learn known drugtarget relationships [22,23]; Buza et al proposed ECkNN/HLM , a KNN method (hub-aware regression technique) with error correction to mitigate the harmful effects of bad hubs [24,25,26]; Mei et al proposed BLM-NII, an inference integrated into a BLM approach, to deal with a new candidate problem for pure BLM [27].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%