Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 58 references

Drug-Drug Interaction Prediction Based on Knowledge Graph Embeddings and Convolutional-LSTM Network

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A knowledge-graph embedding pipeline with a convolutional-LSTM ensemble predicts drug-drug interactions with AUPR 0.94, F1 0.92, and MCC 0.80 in five-fold cross-validation.

desk verdict Useful large-scale DDI dataset and honest embedding comparison, but headline results are inflated by putting prior model predictions into the ground truth. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01288 v1 pith:GVHY5MGB submitted 2019-08-04 cs.LG cs.AI

Md. Rezaul Karim , Michael Cochez , Joao Bosco Jares , Mamtaz Uddin , Oya Beyan , Stefan Decker This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords drug-druginteractionpredictionknowledgegraphembeddingsComplExconvolutional-LSTMmodelaveragingensemblelinkimbalancedclassificationmulti-sourcedrugdata
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that drug-drug interactions can be predicted more accurately by fusing several public drug-information repositories into a knowledge graph, embedding the graph's nodes into dense vectors, and training classifiers on the concatenated vectors of each drug pair. The authors assembled 2,898,937 interaction pairs and an integrated knowledge graph with 11,281,434 triples, which they believe is the largest such resource, and evaluated six embedding methods with several classifiers. Their best configuration, ComplEx embeddings trained at scale followed by a convolutional-LSTM network whose probabilities are averaged with random forest and gradient-boosted trees, reaches an AUPR (area under the precision-recall curve) of 0.94, an F1-score of 0.92, and a Matthews correlation coefficient of 0.80 in five-fold cross-validation. If this holds, drug development and co-prescription screening could prioritize unknown interactions computationally before resorting to costly clinical evaluation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a three-stage pipeline. First, a knowledge graph is assembled from drug, gene, protein, pathway, enzyme, and phenotype data, deliberately excluding explicit interaction edges so that the learned representations carry background knowledge rather than the target labels. Second, ComplEx embeddings, a knowledge-graph embedding model that scores triples with the Hermitian dot product of complex vectors, allowing it to model symmetric and antisymmetric relations, are trained at scale, producing 300-dimensional vectors for 12,439 drugs; each drug pair is represented by concatenating its two vectors. Third, a convolutional-LSTM classifier processes that representation: a 1D convolutional layer with 100 filters and kernel size 4 extracts local feature patterns, max pooling downsamples them, and an LSTM layer treats the flattened features as timesteps to carry global dependencies; its output passes through dense, dropout, and Gaussian-noise layers to a softmax. The final predictor averages the probabilities of this network with random forest and gradient-boosted trees, and this ensemble defines the reported accuracy.

What would settle it

Retrain the best-performing ensemble after deleting every interaction that entered the dataset from a prediction algorithm rather than from a curated or pharmacist-verified source, then measure AUPR and MCC on a held-out set of verified interactions; if the scores fall well below 0.94 and 0.80, the original accuracy was carried by predicted labels rather than by genuine interaction knowledge.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the choice of knowledge-graph embedding, rather than classifier sophistication alone, drives DDI prediction quality. The paper reports that ComplEx embeddings, a model that scores triples with the Hermitian dot product of complex vectors and can represent both symmetric and antisymmetric relations, yield the most informative drug-pair features; the same classifiers perform markedly worse on random-walk or translation-based embeddings. On those features, a convolutional-LSTM network, which uses 1D convolution for local feature patterns and an LSTM for global dependencies, outperforms every baseline classifier, and averaging its predictions with random forest and gradient-boosted trees improves the F1-score by about 1.5 percentage points over the best individual model. The quantitative claim is Table 3: AUPR 0.94, F1 0.92, MCC 0.80 during five-fold cross-validation, with the ensemble best across all six embedding methods.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the list of known interactions used for training and testing is correct, even though about 145,000 of its entries were themselves produced by a label-propagation prediction algorithm and a few more came from another model's top-ranked guesses; if those predicted labels are biased, the reported accuracy is inflated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is correct, unknown drug pairs can be ranked from public knowledge-graph data alone, allowing laboratories and regulators to concentrate scarce testing resources on the most plausible interactions.
  • The large gap between embedding methods means that scalable, relation-aware embeddings are a higher-leverage investment than classifier choice alone for this problem.
  • The Conv-LSTM's consistent advantage over classical baselines suggests that combining local feature extraction with sequential and global modeling captures complementary signals in drug-pair data.
  • Reporting AUPR and MCC, rather than AUC alone, is the appropriate standard for this imbalanced task, and the reported numbers supply a concrete benchmark for later methods.
  • The assembled dataset and integrated knowledge graph are positioned as a reusable benchmark, so future work can compare methods on identical training and test splits.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial extension: because part of the positive set consists of earlier model predictions, a prospective evaluation on only pharmacist-verified, post-market interactions would test whether the 0.94 AUPR carries over to genuine clinical discovery.
  • Editorial extension: the same integrate-then-embed pipeline could be applied to other biomedical link-prediction tasks, such as drug-target binding or adverse-event prediction, where multi-source background knowledge is available.
  • Editorial extension: an ablation that removes each data source from the integrated graph would reveal which sources drive the gain; the paper does not isolate this, but it is a natural next experiment.
  • Editorial extension: a temporal holdout, training only on interactions known before a cutoff date and testing on later-reported ones, would measure prospective utility more realistically than random cross-validation splits.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a drug-drug interaction (DDI) prediction pipeline that integrates multiple drug-related data sources into a knowledge graph, embeds the graph nodes using several knowledge-graph embedding methods (with ComplEx trained via PyTorch-BigGraph reported as best), and then trains a convolutional-LSTM network together with classic machine-learning baselines on concatenated drug-pair embedding vectors. A model-averaging ensemble of the three best classifiers is reported to achieve AUPR 0.94, F1-score 0.92, and MCC 0.80 under 5-fold cross-validation. The authors claim the largest DDI dataset to date (2,898,937 interaction pairs) and a large integrated knowledge graph. The paper also compares embedding methods, analyzes learning curves, and discusses state-of-the-art comparisons.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper would provide a useful demonstration that multi-source knowledge-graph embeddings, especially those from PyTorch-BigGraph's ComplEx, can feed effective classifiers for DDI prediction, and the released code/scripts would support reproducibility. The evaluation is fairly broad: six embedding methods, six classical baselines plus the Conv-LSTM architecture, and multiple metrics (AUPR, F1, MCC) are considered. However, the central quantitative claim is compromised by the inclusion of model-generated predictions in the ground-truth positive set, so the significance of the reported accuracy numbers is currently unclear.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2.2 / Table 1] The positive set includes 145,068 DDIs predicted by label propagation in Zhang et al. [50] and the top ten predictions from Sridhar et al. [40], totaling at least 145,078 model-generated pairs out of the 145,108 in the 'MEDLINE, other sources' category. Because the 5-fold cross-validation in Section 4 splits this combined positive set randomly, these predicted positives appear in both training and test folds, so the classifier can achieve high AUPR/F1/MCC by learning to reproduce the earlier models' outputs rather than by identifying true, curated interactions. The reported 0.94/0.92/0.80 therefore do not cleanly estimate performance on validated DDIs. The authors should re-run the experiments with these predicted pairs excluded from the positive set, or at minimum report performance separately on the curated and predicted subsets.
  2. [Section 1 contribution bullet / Table 2] The Introduction states that the integrated knowledge graph has '1.2 billion triples,' but Table 2 reports a total of 11,281,434 triples across all sources, a discrepancy of roughly two orders of magnitude. This inconsistency affects the paper's scale claims, including the 'largest available' DDI dataset assertion. The authors must correct either the text or the table and ensure all quantitative descriptions of the data artifacts are consistent.
  3. [Section 4 / Table 3] The headline results are reported as point estimates with no standard deviations, no fold-level breakdown, and no explanation of how the 'best' configuration was selected among the 5 runs and hyperparameter searches. The abstract's use of 'up to' suggests best-case selection rather than average performance. The authors should report mean and standard deviation over folds and independent runs, and state explicitly whether the Table 3 values are means, best folds, or best runs.
  4. [Section 4.4] The negative-sampling ratio sigma is handled in a way that is unclear and potentially post hoc: the text says sigma was set to 15, then further varied in {5,10,20,25}, with sigma=20 giving about a 1% AUPR boost, yet it is not stated which sigma produced the results in Table 3 and whether this selection was made using a validation set or the test set. The authors should describe a clear model-selection protocol (e.g., nested cross-validation) so that the reported test numbers are not optimized after seeing test performance.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Equation (1)] The phrase 'interaction exits between drugs' should be corrected to 'interaction exists between drugs.'
  2. [Section 3.3 and Table 3] The embedding method is referred to as 'SimpleIE' in the text and Table 3, but the reference [25] and the standard name are 'SimplE'; please use a consistent spelling.
  3. [Section 3.5] The sentence describing the data split is ambiguous: it says 70% of the data is used for training, 30% for evaluating, and 10% from the training set for validation, which does not sum to a clear protocol. Please specify the actual proportions, e.g., 70% train / 10% validation / 20% test, and how the 5 runs are defined.
  4. [Section 4.1] The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient of 0.70 is mentioned without defining which variables are correlated; please define the variables or remove the statement.
  5. [Section 3.2.2] For the interactions from Zhang et al. and Sridhar et al., the verb 'extract' is not appropriate because these are model predictions rather than extracted facts; consider saying 'we included these predicted interactions' to avoid implying experimental verification.
  6. [References] Reference [44] appears to duplicate reference [43] (the same Tatonetti et al. paper); please remove the duplicate or distinguish the two citations with different page numbers or versions if intended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the KG embeddings are learned without DDI labels and the classifier is a standard supervised model; the only adjacent issue is data quality, not a derivation loop.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The integrated KG is explicitly built without DDI edges (Section 3.2.3: 'this integrated knowledge graph should not contain any explicit information about drug-drug interactions'), so the PBG/ComplEx embeddings in Section 3.3 are not fitted to the DDI labels. The positive set in Section 3.2.2 is assembled from DrugBank, KEGG, TWOSIDES, MEDLINE, plus 145,068 prior predictions from Zhang et al. and 10 from Sridhar et al.; the classifier then solves a standard supervised binary link-prediction task with concatenated embeddings as features and cross-entropy loss (Eq. 9). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation reduces to its own input by construction. The inclusion of prior model outputs in the positive set is a legitimate data-quality and external-validity concern, because the reported AUPR/F1/MCC may partly measure agreement with those prior predictions, but it does not make the derivation circular, and those pairs are a small fraction of the 2.9M positives. The paper's stated limitation in Section 5, namely the inability to provide explanations for predicted DDIs, is an interpretability limitation and not a circularity issue. Self-citations (e.g., Cochez et al. for RDF2Vec/KGloVe) are implementation choices rather than load-bearing support for the headline result, which is driven by PBG/ComplEx embeddings and the Conv-LSTM ensemble. Therefore no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or theoretical entities are introduced. The method relies on standard background from knowledge graph embeddings and deep learning, plus a domain assumption that aggregated DDI labels, including model predictions, are trustworthy.

free parameters (3)
  • negative sampling ratio sigma = 15
    The number of negative triples per positive sample for ComplEx embeddings; the authors set it to 15 and later varied it between 5 and 25, observing about 1% AUPR change.
  • embedding dimension = 300
    The dimension of all knowledge graph embeddings; chosen by hand without a reported search.
  • Conv-LSTM hyperparameters = 100 filters, kernel size 4, pool size 4, batch size 128
    Selected via random search; the paper does not report the full search space or the best hyperparameters.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Knowledge graph embeddings capture enough drug-related information to predict drug-drug interactions.
    The whole method relies on this; stated in Section 3.3 as the purpose of embedding.
  • domain assumption Aggregated DDI labels, including interactions predicted by previous models, are accurate enough to serve as ground truth.
    The authors add 145,068 label propagation predictions and PSL top ten predictions to the positive set (Section 3.2.2), assuming these are true interactions.
  • domain assumption Identifiers from different databases are correctly mapped to DrugBank IDs using owl:sameAs and owl:equivalentProperty axioms.
    Mappings between KEGG, PharmGKB, and DrugBank are created automatically; incorrect mappings would corrupt the graph and the features (Section 3.2.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Drug-Drug Interaction Prediction Based on Knowledge Graph Embeddings and Convolutional-LSTM Network." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GVHY5MGB

@misc{pith2026190801288,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Drug-Drug Interaction Prediction Based on Knowledge Graph Embeddings and Convolutional-LSTM Network},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GVHY5MGB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01288}
}
read the original abstract

Interference between pharmacological substances can cause serious medical injuries. Correctly predicting so-called drug-drug interactions (DDI) does not only reduce these cases but can also result in a reduction of drug development cost. Presently, most drug-related knowledge is the result of clinical evaluations and post-marketing surveillance; resulting in a limited amount of information. Existing data-driven prediction approaches for DDIs typically rely on a single source of information, while using information from multiple sources would help improve predictions. Machine learning (ML) techniques are used, but the techniques are often unable to deal with skewness in the data. Hence, we propose a new ML approach for predicting DDIs based on multiple data sources. For this task, we use 12,000 drug features from DrugBank, PharmGKB, and KEGG drugs, which are integrated using Knowledge Graphs (KGs). To train our prediction model, we first embed the nodes in the graph using various embedding approaches. We found that the best performing combination was a ComplEx embedding method creating using PyTorch-BigGraph (PBG) with a Convolutional-LSTM network and classic machine learning-based prediction models. The model averaging ensemble method of three best classifiers yields up to 0.94, 0.92, 0.80 for AUPR, F1-score, and MCC, respectively during 5-fold cross-validation tests.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01288 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. workflow of the proposed approach for predicting DDIs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. extraction of DDIs from different scientific sources [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A schematic representation of the Conv-LSTM network, which starts from taking input into an n-dimensional embed￾ding space and passing to both CNN and LSTM layers before getting the vector representation of the most important features to fed through dense, dropout, Gaussian noise, and Softmax layers for predicting possible drug-drug interactions. 3.5 Network training Since all the classifiers need both negative and … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: ROC curves of cross-validated Conv-LSTM model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Calibrating Conv-LSTM with embedding methods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Learning curves showing the validation and training scores of top-3 and SVM classifier [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [50]

    Ping Zhang, Fei Wang, Jianying Hu, and Robert Sorrentino. 2015. Label propaga- tion prediction of drug-drug interactions based on clinical side effects. Scientific reports 5 (2015), 12339

    work page 2015

  2. [40]

    Dhanya Sridhar, Shobeir Fakhraei, and Lise Getoor. 2016. A probabilistic approach for collective similarity-based drug–drug interaction prediction. Bioinformatics 32, 20 (2016), 3175–3182

    work page 2016

  3. [1]

    Ibrahim Abdelaziz, Achille Fokoue, Ping Zhang, and Mohammad Sadoghi. 2017. Large-scale structural and textual similarity-based mining of knowledge graph to predict drug–drug interactions. Journal of Web Semantics 44 (2017), 104–117

    work page 2017

  4. [2]

    Mona Alshahrani, Mohammad Asif Khan, Omar Maddouri, Akira R Kinjo, NÞria Queralt-Rosinach, and Robert Hoehndorf. 2017. Neuro-symbolic representation learning on biological knowledge graphs. Bioinformatics 33, 17 (04 2017), 2723–

    work page 2017

  5. [3]

    François Belleau, Marc-Alexandre Nolin, Nicole Tourigny, Philippe Rigault, and Jean Morissette. 2008. Bio2RDF: towards a mashup to build bioinformatics knowledge systems. Journal of biomedical informatics 41, 5 (2008), 706–716

    work page 2008

  6. [4]

    Jari Björne, Suwisa Kaewphan, and Tapio Salakoski. 2013. UTurku: Drug Named Entity Recognition and Drug-Drug Interaction Extraction Using SVM Classifi- cation and Domain Knowledge. In Second Joint Conference on Lexical and Com- putational Semantics (*SEM), Volume 2: Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2013) . ...

    work page 2013

  7. [5]

    Tamara Bobić, Juliane Fluck, and Martin Hofmann-Apitius. 2013. SCAI: Extracting drug-drug interactions using a rich feature vector. In Second Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*SEM), Volume 2: Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2013) . Association for Computational Linguistics, Atlanta,...

    work page 2013

  8. [6]

    Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto Garcia-Duran, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. 2013. Translating Embeddings for Modeling Multi- relational Data. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26 , C. J. C. Burges, L. Bottou, M. Welling, Z. Ghahramani, and K. Q. Wein- berger (Eds.). Curran Associates, Inc., 2787–2795. http://papers.nips.c...

    work page 2013

Show all 58 references
  1. [7]

    Aurel Cami, Shannon Manzi, and Ben Y Reis. 2013. Pharmacointeraction network models predict unknown drug-drug interactions. PloS one 8, 4 (2013), e61468

    2013

  2. [8]

    Remzi Celebi, Erkan Yasar, Huseyin Uyar, Ozgur Gumus, Oguz Dikenelli, and Michel Dumontier. 2018. Evaluation of Knowledge Graph Embedding Approaches for Drug-Drug Interaction Prediction using Linked Open Data. (2018)

    2018

  3. [9]

    Feixiong Cheng and Zhongming Zhao. 2014. Machine learning-based prediction of drug–drug interactions by integrating drug phenotypic, therapeutic, chemical, and genomic properties. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 21, e2 (2014), e278–e286

    2014

  4. [10]

    Faisal Mahbub Chowdhury and Alberto Lavelli

    Md. Faisal Mahbub Chowdhury and Alberto Lavelli. 2013. FBK-irst : A Multi- Phase Kernel Based Approach for Drug-Drug Interaction Detection and Clas- sification that Exploits Linguistic Information. In Second Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*SEM), Volum...

    2013

  5. [11]

    Michael Cochez, Petar Ristoski, and Heiko Paulheim. 2017. Global RDF Vector Space Embeddings. In The Semantic Web – ISWC 2017: 16th International Semantic Web Conference, Vienna, Austria, October 21–25, 2017 , Claudia d’Amato, Miriam Fernandez, et al. (Eds.). Springer Internat...

    2017 doi

  6. [12]

    Michael Cochez, Petar Ristoski, Simone Paolo Ponzetto, and Heiko Paulheim

  7. [13]

    Arun CS Kumar, Suchendra M Bhandarkar, and Mukta Prasad. 2018. Depthnet: A recurrent neural network architecture for monocular depth prediction. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW). The Computer Vision Foundation, ...

    2018

  8. [14]

    Devendra Singh Dhami, Gautam Kunapuli, Mayukh Das, David Page, and Sri- raam Natarajan. 2018. Drug-Drug Interaction Discovery: Kernel Learning from Heterogeneous Similarities. Smart Health 9 (2018), 88–100

    2018

  9. [15]

    Jon D Duke, Xu Han, Zhiping Wang, Abhinita Subhadarshini, Shreyas D Karnik, Xiaochun Li, Stephen D Hall, Yan Jin, J Thomas Callaghan, Marcus J Overhage, et al. 2012. Literature based drug interaction prediction with clinical assessment using electronic medical records: novel m...

    2012

  10. [16]

    Jun Feng, Minlie Huang, Mingdong Wang, Mantong Zhou, Yu Hao, and Xiaoyan Zhu. 2016. Knowledge Graph Embedding by Flexible Translation. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’16) . AAAI Press, 557–560

    2016

  11. [17]

    Assaf Gottlieb, Gideon Y Stein, Yoram Oron, Eytan Ruppin, and Roded Sharan

  12. [18]

    Hunter, and K

    Negacy Hailu, Lawrence E. Hunter, and K. Bretonnel Cohen. 2013. UCol- orado_SOM: Extraction of Drug-Drug Interactions from Biomedical Text using Knowledge-rich and Knowledge-poor Features. In Second Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*SEM), Volume 2: Proc...

    2013

  13. [19]

    Sophie Hallstedt, Nikita Makarov, Hossein Samieadel, Maria Pellegrino, Martina Garofalo, and Michael Cochez. 2018. Strategies to connect RDF Graphs for Link Prediction using Drug-Disease Knowledge Graphs. https://doi.org/10.6084/ m9.figshare.7429094.v1 Poster presented at the ...

    2018

  14. [20]

    Pathima Nusrath Hameed, Karin Verspoor, Snezana Kusljic, and Saman Halga- muge. 2017. Positive-unlabeled learning for inferring drug interactions based on heterogeneous attributes. BMC bioinformatics 18, 1 (2017), 140

    2017

  15. [21]

    María Herrero-Zazo, Isabel Segura-Bedmar, and Thierry Declerck. 2013. The DDI corpus: An annotated corpus with pharmacological substances and drug–drug interactions. Journal of biomedical informatics 46, 5 (2013), 914–920

    2013

  16. [22]

    Guoliang Ji, Shizhu He, Liheng Xu, Kang Liu, and Jun Zhao. 2015. Knowledge Graph Embedding via Dynamic Mapping Matrix. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Proc...

    2015 doi

  17. [23]

    Minoru Kanehisa, Susumu Goto, Mao Tanabe, and Mika Hirakawa. 2009. KEGG for representation and analysis of molecular networks involving diseases and drugs. Nucleic acids research 38, suppl_1 (2009), D355–D360

    2009

  18. [24]

    Andrej Kastrin, Polonca Ferk, and Brane Leskošek. 2018. Predicting potential drug-drug interactions on topological and semantic similarity features using statistical learning. PloS one 13, 5 (2018), e0196865

    2018

  19. [25]

    Seyed Mehran Kazemi and David Poole. 2018. SimplE Embedding for Link Prediction in Knowledge Graphs. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, K. Grauman, N. Cesa-Bianchi, and R. Garnett (Eds.). Curran Associates, Inc., 4284...

    2018

  20. [26]

    Bhushan Kotnis and Vivi Nastase. 2017. Analysis of the impact of negative sampling on link prediction in knowledge graphs.arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.06816 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  21. [27]

    Adam Lerer, Ledell Wu, Jiajun Shen, Timothee Lacroix, Luca Wehrstedt, Abhijit Bose, and Alex Peysakhovich. 2019. PyTorch-BigGraph: A Large-scale Graph Embedding System. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.12287 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Peng Li, Chao Huang, Yingxue Fu, Jinan Wang, Ziyin Wu, Jinlong Ru, Chunli Zheng, Zihu Guo, Xuetong Chen, Wei Zhou, et al. 2015. Large-scale exploration and analysis of drug combinations. Bioinformatics 31, 12 (2015), 2007–2016

    2015

  23. [29]

    Yankai Lin, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, Yang Liu, and Xuan Zhu. 2015. Learning Entity and Relation Embeddings for Knowledge Graph Completion. InProceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’15) . AAAI Press, 2181–2187. http://dl.acm.org/citatio...

    2015

  24. [30]

    Tomas Mikolov, Kai Chen, and Jeffrey Dean. 2013. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.3781 (2013)

    2013 arXiv

  25. [31]

    Bethany Percha and Russ Altman. 2012. Discovery and explanation of drug-drug interactions via text mining. In Biocomputing 2012. World Scientific, 410–421

    2012

  26. [32]

    Bethany Percha and Russ B Altman. 2013. Informatics confronts drug–drug interactions. Trends in pharmacological sciences 34, 3 (2013), 178–184

    2013

  27. [33]

    Boyce, and Rashmi Prasad

    Majid Rastegar-Mojarad, Richard D. Boyce, and Rashmi Prasad. 2013. UWM- TRIADS: Classifying Drug-Drug Interactions with Two-Stage SVM and Post- Processing. In Second Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*SEM), Volume 2: Proceedings of the Seventh Internatio...

    2013

  28. [34]

    Petar Ristoski and Heiko Paulheim. 2016. RDF2Vec: RDF Graph Embeddings for Data Mining. In The Semantic Web – ISWC 2016 , Paul Groth, Elena Simperl, Alasdair Gray, Marta Sabou, Markus Krötzsch, Freddy Lecue, Fabian Flöck, and Yolanda Gil (Eds.). Springer International Publishi...

    2016

  29. [35]

    Muhammad Saleem, Ali Hasnain, and Axel Ngonga Ngomo. 2018. Largerdf- bench: a billion triples benchmark for sparql endpoint federation. Journal of Web Semantics 48 (2018), 85–125

    2018

  30. [36]

    Isabel Segura-Bedmar, Paloma Martínez, and María Herrero-Zazo. 2014. Lessons learnt from the DDIExtraction-2013 shared task.Journal of biomedical informatics 51 (2014), 152–164

    2014

  31. [37]

    Xingjian SHI, Zhourong Chen, Hao Wang, Dit-Yan Yeung, Wai-kin Wong, and Wang-chun WOO. 2015. Convolutional LSTM Network: A Machine Learning Approach for Precipitation Nowcasting. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28, C. Cortes, N. D. Lawrence, D. D. Lee, M. ...

    2015

  32. [38]

    Guy Shtar, Lior Rokach, and Bracha Shapira. 2019. Detecting drug-drug inter- actions using artificial neural networks and classic graph similarity measures. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.04571 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  33. [39]

    Richard Socher, Danqi Chen, Christopher D Manning, and Andrew Ng. 2013. Rea- soning with neural tensor networks for knowledge base completion. In Advances in neural information processing systems . 926–934

    2013

  34. [41]

    Takako Takeda, Ming Hao, Tiejun Cheng, Stephen H Bryant, and Yanli Wang

  35. [42]

    Luis Tari, Saadat Anwar, Shanshan Liang, James Cai, and Chitta Baral. 2010. Discovering drug–drug interactions: a text-mining and reasoning approach based on properties of drug metabolism. Bioinformatics 26, 18 (2010), i547–i553

    2010

  36. [43]

    Nicholas P Tatonetti, P Ye Patrick, Roxana Daneshjou, and Russ B Altman. 2012. Data-driven prediction of drug effects and interactions. Science translational medicine 4, 125 (2012), 125ra31–125ra31. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed. 3003377

    2012 doi

  37. [44]

    Nicholas P Tatonetti, P Ye Patrick, Roxana Daneshjou, and Russ B Altman. 2012. Data-driven prediction of drug effects and interactions. Science translational medicine 4, 125 (2012), 125ra31–125ra31

    2012

  38. [45]

    Journal of cheminformatics 9, 1 (2017), 16

    Predicting drug–drug interactions through drug structural similarities and interaction networks incorporating pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics knowledge. Journal of cheminformatics 9, 1 (2017), 16

    2017

  39. [46]

    Meng Wang. 2017. Predicting Rich Drug-Drug Interactions via Biomedical Knowl- edge Graphs and Text Jointly Embedding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.08875 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Michelle Whirl-Carrillo, Ellen M McDonagh, JM Hebert, Li Gong, K Sangkuhl, CF Thorn, Russ B Altman, and Teri E Klein. 2012. Pharmacogenomics knowledge for personalized medicine. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 92, 4 (2012), 414–417

    2012

  41. [48]

    David S Wishart, Yannick D Feunang, An C Guo, Elvis J Lo, Ana Marcu, Ja- son R Grant, Tanvir Sajed, Daniel Johnson, Carin Li, Zinat Sayeeda, et al. 2017. DrugBank 5.0: a major update to the DrugBank database for 2018. Nucleic acids research 46, D1 (2017), D1074–D1082

    2017

  42. [49]

    ThÃľo Trouillon, Johannes Welbl, Sebastian Riedel, Eric Gaussier, and Guillaume Bouchard. 2016. Complex Embeddings for Simple Link Prediction. In Proceedings of The 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research), Maria Florina Balc...

    2016

  43. [51]

    Wen Zhang, Yanlin Chen, Feng Liu, Fei Luo, Gang Tian, and Xiaohong Li. 2017. Predicting potential drug-drug interactions by integrating chemical, biological, phenotypic and network data. BMC bioinformatics 18, 1 (2017), 18

    2017

  44. [52]

    Wen Zhang, Bibek Paudel, Wei Zhang, Abraham Bernstein, and Huajun Chen

  45. [53]

    Junyuan Xie, Linli Xu, and Enhong Chen. 2012. Image Denoising and In- painting with Deep Neural Networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 25 , F. Pereira, C. J. C. Burges, L. Bottou, and K. Q. Wein- berger (Eds.). Curran Associates, Inc., 341–349. http://p...

    2012

  46. [58]

    Ziqi Zhang and Lei Luo. 2018. Hate speech detection: A solved problem? The challenging case of long tail on Twitter. Semantic Web Pre-press, Preprint (2018), 1–21

    2018

  47. [2012]

    Molecular systems biology 8, 1 (2012), 592

    INDI: a computational framework for inferring drug interactions and their associated recommendations. Molecular systems biology 8, 1 (2012), 592

    2012

  48. [2017]

    In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Web Intelligence, Mining and Semantics (WIMS ’17)

    Biased Graph Walks for RDF Graph Embeddings. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Web Intelligence, Mining and Semantics (WIMS ’17) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 21, 12 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3102254. 3102279

    doi

  49. [2019]

    In Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM ’19)

    Interaction Embeddings for Prediction and Explanation in Knowledge Graphs. In Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM ’19) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 96–104. https://doi. org/10.1145/3289600.3291014

  50. [2730]

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btx275

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.