4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Comparing a knowledge-driven approach to a supervised machine learning approach in large-scale extraction of drug-side effect relationships from free-text biomedical literature

期刊

BMC BIOINFORMATICS
卷 16, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-16-S5-S6

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCATS NIH HHS [UL1 TR000439] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NCI NIH HHS [R25 CA094186-06] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NCRR NIH HHS [UL1 RR024989] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NCCDPHP CDC HHS [DP2HD084068] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Systems approaches to studying drug-side-effect (drug-SE) associations are emerging as an active research area for both drug target discovery and drug repositioning. However, a comprehensive drug-SE association knowledge base does not exist. In this study, we present a novel knowledge-driven (KD) approach to effectively extract a large number of drug-SE pairs from published biomedical literature. Data and methods: For the text corpus, we used 21,354,075 MEDLINE records (119,085,682 sentences). First, we used known drug-SE associations derived from FDA drug labels as prior knowledge to automatically find SE-related sentences and abstracts. We then extracted a total of 49,575 drug-SE pairs from MEDLINE sentences and 180,454 pairs from abstracts. Results: On average, the KD approach has achieved a precision of 0.335, a recall of 0.509, and an F1 of 0.392, which is significantly better than a SVM-based machine learning approach (precision: 0.135, recall: 0.900, F1: 0.233) with a 73.0% increase in F1 score. Through integrative analysis, we demonstrate that the higher-level phenotypic drug-SE relationships reflects lower-level genetic, genomic, and chemical drug mechanisms. In addition, we show that the extracted drug-SE pairs can be directly used in drug repositioning. Conclusion: In summary, we automatically constructed a large-scale higher-level drug phenotype relationship knowledge, which can have great potential in computational drug discovery.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据