4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

CNN-DDI: a learning-based method for predicting drug-drug interactions using convolution neural networks

期刊

BMC BIOINFORMATICS
卷 23, 期 SUPPL 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12859-022-04612-2

关键词

Drug-drug interactions; Drug categories; Convolutional neural network; Multiple features combination

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study proposes a novel algorithm using a CNN architecture to predict drug-drug interactions. The algorithm extracts feature interactions from drug categories, targets, pathways, and enzymes to build a convolution neural network as the predictor. The results show that drug categories are effective as a new feature type in the CNN-DDI method.
Background Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) are the reactions between drugs. They are compartmentalized into three types: synergistic, antagonistic and no reaction. As a rapidly developing technology, predicting DDIs-associated events is getting more and more attention and application in drug development and disease diagnosis fields. In this work, we study not only whether the two drugs interact, but also specific interaction types. And we propose a learning-based method using convolution neural networks to learn feature representations and predict DDIs. Results In this paper, we proposed a novel algorithm using a CNN architecture, named CNN-DDI, to predict drug-drug interactions. First, we extract feature interactions from drug categories, targets, pathways and enzymes as feature vectors and employ the Jaccard similarity as the measurement of drugs similarity. Then, based on the representation of features, we build a new convolution neural network as the DDIs' predictor. Conclusion The experimental results indicate that drug categories is effective as a new feature type applied to CNN-DDI method. And using multiple features is more informative and more effective than single feature. It can be concluded that CNN-DDI has more superiority than other existing algorithms on task of predicting DDIs.

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