↓ Skip to main content

Using predicate and provenance information from a knowledge graph for drug efficacy screening

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biomedical Semantics, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Using predicate and provenance information from a knowledge graph for drug efficacy screening
Published in
Journal of Biomedical Semantics, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13326-018-0189-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wytze J. Vlietstra, Rein Vos, Anneke M. Sijbers, Erik M. van Mulligen, Jan A. Kors

Abstract

Biomedical knowledge graphs have become important tools to computationally analyse the comprehensive body of biomedical knowledge. They represent knowledge as subject-predicate-object triples, in which the predicate indicates the relationship between subject and object. A triple can also contain provenance information, which consists of references to the sources of the triple (e.g. scientific publications or database entries). Knowledge graphs have been used to classify drug-disease pairs for drug efficacy screening, but existing computational methods have often ignored predicate and provenance information. Using this information, we aimed to develop a supervised machine learning classifier and determine the added value of predicate and provenance information for drug efficacy screening. To ensure the biological plausibility of our method we performed our research on the protein level, where drugs are represented by their drug target proteins, and diseases by their disease proteins. Using random forests with repeated 10-fold cross-validation, our method achieved an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 78.1% and 74.3% for two reference sets. We benchmarked against a state-of-the-art knowledge-graph technique that does not use predicate and provenance information, obtaining AUCs of 65.6% and 64.6%, respectively. Classifiers that only used predicate information performed superior to classifiers that only used provenance information, but using both performed best. We conclude that both predicate and provenance information provide added value for drug efficacy screening.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Student > Master 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 4 7%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 13 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 17 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 16 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 September 2018.
All research outputs
#19,784,347
of 24,312,464 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#299
of 363 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#262,836
of 339,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,312,464 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 363 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 339,695 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.