A comparison of embedding aggregation strategies in drug–target interaction prediction
Abstract The prediction of interactions between novel drugs and biological targets is a vital step in the early stage of the drug discovery pipeline. Many deep learning approaches have been proposed over the last decade, with a substantial fraction of them sharing the same underlying two-branch arch...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Iliadis, Dimitrios [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2024 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Anmerkung: |
© The Author(s) 2024 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: BMC bioinformatics - London : BioMed Central, 2000, 25(2024), 1 vom: 06. Feb. |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:25 ; year:2024 ; number:1 ; day:06 ; month:02 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1186/s12859-024-05684-y |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
SPR054667941 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | SPR054667941 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240207064625.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 240207s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1186/s12859-024-05684-y |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)SPR054667941 | ||
| 035 | |a (SPR)s12859-024-05684-y-e | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Iliadis, Dimitrios |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 2 | |a A comparison of embedding aggregation strategies in drug–target interaction prediction |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2024 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © The Author(s) 2024 | ||
| 520 | |a Abstract The prediction of interactions between novel drugs and biological targets is a vital step in the early stage of the drug discovery pipeline. Many deep learning approaches have been proposed over the last decade, with a substantial fraction of them sharing the same underlying two-branch architecture. Their distinction is limited to the use of different types of feature representations and branches (multi-layer perceptrons, convolutional neural networks, graph neural networks and transformers). In contrast, the strategy used to combine the outputs (embeddings) of the branches has remained mostly the same. The same general architecture has also been used extensively in the area of recommender systems, where the choice of an aggregation strategy is still an open question. In this work, we investigate the effectiveness of three different embedding aggregation strategies in the area of drug–target interaction (DTI) prediction. We formally define these strategies and prove their universal approximator capabilities. We then present experiments that compare the different strategies on benchmark datasets from the area of DTI prediction, showcasing conditions under which specific strategies could be the obvious choice. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Drug–target interaction prediction |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Binding affinity prediction |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Recommender systems |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Deep learning |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 700 | 1 | |a De Baets, Bernard |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Pahikkala, Tapio |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Waegeman, Willem |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t BMC bioinformatics |d London : BioMed Central, 2000 |g 25(2024), 1 vom: 06. Feb. |w (DE-627)326644814 |w (DE-600)2041484-5 |x 1471-2105 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:25 |g year:2024 |g number:1 |g day:06 |g month:02 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-024-05684-y |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_SPRINGER | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_11 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_23 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_31 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_39 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_63 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_70 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_74 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_105 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_151 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_161 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_170 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_206 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_213 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_230 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_285 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_293 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_370 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_702 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2001 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2003 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2005 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2006 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2008 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2009 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2010 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2011 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2015 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2020 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2021 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2025 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2031 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2038 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2044 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2048 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2050 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2055 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2056 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2057 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2061 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2111 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2113 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2190 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4037 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4126 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4249 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4306 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4307 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4313 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4322 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4323 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4324 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4325 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4326 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4335 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4338 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4367 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4700 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 25 |j 2024 |e 1 |b 06 |c 02 | ||
| author_variant |
d i di b b d bb bbd t p tp w w ww |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:14712105:2024----::cmaiooebdiggrgtosrtgeidutrei |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2024 |
| publishDate |
2024 |
| allfields |
10.1186/s12859-024-05684-y doi (DE-627)SPR054667941 (SPR)s12859-024-05684-y-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Iliadis, Dimitrios verfasserin aut A comparison of embedding aggregation strategies in drug–target interaction prediction 2024 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2024 Abstract The prediction of interactions between novel drugs and biological targets is a vital step in the early stage of the drug discovery pipeline. Many deep learning approaches have been proposed over the last decade, with a substantial fraction of them sharing the same underlying two-branch architecture. Their distinction is limited to the use of different types of feature representations and branches (multi-layer perceptrons, convolutional neural networks, graph neural networks and transformers). In contrast, the strategy used to combine the outputs (embeddings) of the branches has remained mostly the same. The same general architecture has also been used extensively in the area of recommender systems, where the choice of an aggregation strategy is still an open question. In this work, we investigate the effectiveness of three different embedding aggregation strategies in the area of drug–target interaction (DTI) prediction. We formally define these strategies and prove their universal approximator capabilities. We then present experiments that compare the different strategies on benchmark datasets from the area of DTI prediction, showcasing conditions under which specific strategies could be the obvious choice. Drug–target interaction prediction (dpeaa)DE-He213 Binding affinity prediction (dpeaa)DE-He213 Recommender systems (dpeaa)DE-He213 Deep learning (dpeaa)DE-He213 De Baets, Bernard aut Pahikkala, Tapio aut Waegeman, Willem aut Enthalten in BMC bioinformatics London : BioMed Central, 2000 25(2024), 1 vom: 06. Feb. (DE-627)326644814 (DE-600)2041484-5 1471-2105 nnns volume:25 year:2024 number:1 day:06 month:02 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-024-05684-y kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 25 2024 1 06 02 |
| spelling |
10.1186/s12859-024-05684-y doi (DE-627)SPR054667941 (SPR)s12859-024-05684-y-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Iliadis, Dimitrios verfasserin aut A comparison of embedding aggregation strategies in drug–target interaction prediction 2024 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2024 Abstract The prediction of interactions between novel drugs and biological targets is a vital step in the early stage of the drug discovery pipeline. Many deep learning approaches have been proposed over the last decade, with a substantial fraction of them sharing the same underlying two-branch architecture. Their distinction is limited to the use of different types of feature representations and branches (multi-layer perceptrons, convolutional neural networks, graph neural networks and transformers). In contrast, the strategy used to combine the outputs (embeddings) of the branches has remained mostly the same. The same general architecture has also been used extensively in the area of recommender systems, where the choice of an aggregation strategy is still an open question. In this work, we investigate the effectiveness of three different embedding aggregation strategies in the area of drug–target interaction (DTI) prediction. We formally define these strategies and prove their universal approximator capabilities. We then present experiments that compare the different strategies on benchmark datasets from the area of DTI prediction, showcasing conditions under which specific strategies could be the obvious choice. Drug–target interaction prediction (dpeaa)DE-He213 Binding affinity prediction (dpeaa)DE-He213 Recommender systems (dpeaa)DE-He213 Deep learning (dpeaa)DE-He213 De Baets, Bernard aut Pahikkala, Tapio aut Waegeman, Willem aut Enthalten in BMC bioinformatics London : BioMed Central, 2000 25(2024), 1 vom: 06. Feb. (DE-627)326644814 (DE-600)2041484-5 1471-2105 nnns volume:25 year:2024 number:1 day:06 month:02 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-024-05684-y kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 25 2024 1 06 02 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1186/s12859-024-05684-y doi (DE-627)SPR054667941 (SPR)s12859-024-05684-y-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Iliadis, Dimitrios verfasserin aut A comparison of embedding aggregation strategies in drug–target interaction prediction 2024 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2024 Abstract The prediction of interactions between novel drugs and biological targets is a vital step in the early stage of the drug discovery pipeline. Many deep learning approaches have been proposed over the last decade, with a substantial fraction of them sharing the same underlying two-branch architecture. Their distinction is limited to the use of different types of feature representations and branches (multi-layer perceptrons, convolutional neural networks, graph neural networks and transformers). In contrast, the strategy used to combine the outputs (embeddings) of the branches has remained mostly the same. The same general architecture has also been used extensively in the area of recommender systems, where the choice of an aggregation strategy is still an open question. In this work, we investigate the effectiveness of three different embedding aggregation strategies in the area of drug–target interaction (DTI) prediction. We formally define these strategies and prove their universal approximator capabilities. We then present experiments that compare the different strategies on benchmark datasets from the area of DTI prediction, showcasing conditions under which specific strategies could be the obvious choice. Drug–target interaction prediction (dpeaa)DE-He213 Binding affinity prediction (dpeaa)DE-He213 Recommender systems (dpeaa)DE-He213 Deep learning (dpeaa)DE-He213 De Baets, Bernard aut Pahikkala, Tapio aut Waegeman, Willem aut Enthalten in BMC bioinformatics London : BioMed Central, 2000 25(2024), 1 vom: 06. Feb. (DE-627)326644814 (DE-600)2041484-5 1471-2105 nnns volume:25 year:2024 number:1 day:06 month:02 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-024-05684-y kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 25 2024 1 06 02 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1186/s12859-024-05684-y doi (DE-627)SPR054667941 (SPR)s12859-024-05684-y-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Iliadis, Dimitrios verfasserin aut A comparison of embedding aggregation strategies in drug–target interaction prediction 2024 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2024 Abstract The prediction of interactions between novel drugs and biological targets is a vital step in the early stage of the drug discovery pipeline. Many deep learning approaches have been proposed over the last decade, with a substantial fraction of them sharing the same underlying two-branch architecture. Their distinction is limited to the use of different types of feature representations and branches (multi-layer perceptrons, convolutional neural networks, graph neural networks and transformers). In contrast, the strategy used to combine the outputs (embeddings) of the branches has remained mostly the same. The same general architecture has also been used extensively in the area of recommender systems, where the choice of an aggregation strategy is still an open question. In this work, we investigate the effectiveness of three different embedding aggregation strategies in the area of drug–target interaction (DTI) prediction. We formally define these strategies and prove their universal approximator capabilities. We then present experiments that compare the different strategies on benchmark datasets from the area of DTI prediction, showcasing conditions under which specific strategies could be the obvious choice. Drug–target interaction prediction (dpeaa)DE-He213 Binding affinity prediction (dpeaa)DE-He213 Recommender systems (dpeaa)DE-He213 Deep learning (dpeaa)DE-He213 De Baets, Bernard aut Pahikkala, Tapio aut Waegeman, Willem aut Enthalten in BMC bioinformatics London : BioMed Central, 2000 25(2024), 1 vom: 06. Feb. (DE-627)326644814 (DE-600)2041484-5 1471-2105 nnns volume:25 year:2024 number:1 day:06 month:02 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-024-05684-y kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 25 2024 1 06 02 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1186/s12859-024-05684-y doi (DE-627)SPR054667941 (SPR)s12859-024-05684-y-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Iliadis, Dimitrios verfasserin aut A comparison of embedding aggregation strategies in drug–target interaction prediction 2024 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2024 Abstract The prediction of interactions between novel drugs and biological targets is a vital step in the early stage of the drug discovery pipeline. Many deep learning approaches have been proposed over the last decade, with a substantial fraction of them sharing the same underlying two-branch architecture. Their distinction is limited to the use of different types of feature representations and branches (multi-layer perceptrons, convolutional neural networks, graph neural networks and transformers). In contrast, the strategy used to combine the outputs (embeddings) of the branches has remained mostly the same. The same general architecture has also been used extensively in the area of recommender systems, where the choice of an aggregation strategy is still an open question. In this work, we investigate the effectiveness of three different embedding aggregation strategies in the area of drug–target interaction (DTI) prediction. We formally define these strategies and prove their universal approximator capabilities. We then present experiments that compare the different strategies on benchmark datasets from the area of DTI prediction, showcasing conditions under which specific strategies could be the obvious choice. Drug–target interaction prediction (dpeaa)DE-He213 Binding affinity prediction (dpeaa)DE-He213 Recommender systems (dpeaa)DE-He213 Deep learning (dpeaa)DE-He213 De Baets, Bernard aut Pahikkala, Tapio aut Waegeman, Willem aut Enthalten in BMC bioinformatics London : BioMed Central, 2000 25(2024), 1 vom: 06. Feb. (DE-627)326644814 (DE-600)2041484-5 1471-2105 nnns volume:25 year:2024 number:1 day:06 month:02 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-024-05684-y kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 25 2024 1 06 02 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in BMC bioinformatics 25(2024), 1 vom: 06. Feb. volume:25 year:2024 number:1 day:06 month:02 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in BMC bioinformatics 25(2024), 1 vom: 06. Feb. volume:25 year:2024 number:1 day:06 month:02 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Drug–target interaction prediction Binding affinity prediction Recommender systems Deep learning |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
| container_title |
BMC bioinformatics |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Iliadis, Dimitrios @@aut@@ De Baets, Bernard @@aut@@ Pahikkala, Tapio @@aut@@ Waegeman, Willem @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2024-02-06T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
326644814 |
| id |
SPR054667941 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR054667941</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240207064625.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">240207s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12859-024-05684-y</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR054667941</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12859-024-05684-y-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Iliadis, Dimitrios</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">A comparison of embedding aggregation strategies in drug–target interaction prediction</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2024</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2024</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract The prediction of interactions between novel drugs and biological targets is a vital step in the early stage of the drug discovery pipeline. Many deep learning approaches have been proposed over the last decade, with a substantial fraction of them sharing the same underlying two-branch architecture. Their distinction is limited to the use of different types of feature representations and branches (multi-layer perceptrons, convolutional neural networks, graph neural networks and transformers). In contrast, the strategy used to combine the outputs (embeddings) of the branches has remained mostly the same. The same general architecture has also been used extensively in the area of recommender systems, where the choice of an aggregation strategy is still an open question. In this work, we investigate the effectiveness of three different embedding aggregation strategies in the area of drug–target interaction (DTI) prediction. We formally define these strategies and prove their universal approximator capabilities. We then present experiments that compare the different strategies on benchmark datasets from the area of DTI prediction, showcasing conditions under which specific strategies could be the obvious choice.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Drug–target interaction prediction</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Binding affinity prediction</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Recommender systems</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Deep learning</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">De Baets, Bernard</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Pahikkala, Tapio</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Waegeman, Willem</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC bioinformatics</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2000</subfield><subfield code="g">25(2024), 1 vom: 06. Feb.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)326644814</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2041484-5</subfield><subfield code="x">1471-2105</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:25</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2024</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:06</subfield><subfield code="g">month:02</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-024-05684-y</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2031</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2057</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4326</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">25</subfield><subfield code="j">2024</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">06</subfield><subfield code="c">02</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Iliadis, Dimitrios |
| spellingShingle |
Iliadis, Dimitrios misc Drug–target interaction prediction misc Binding affinity prediction misc Recommender systems misc Deep learning A comparison of embedding aggregation strategies in drug–target interaction prediction |
| authorStr |
Iliadis, Dimitrios |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)326644814 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut aut |
| collection |
springer |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
1471-2105 |
| topic_title |
A comparison of embedding aggregation strategies in drug–target interaction prediction Drug–target interaction prediction (dpeaa)DE-He213 Binding affinity prediction (dpeaa)DE-He213 Recommender systems (dpeaa)DE-He213 Deep learning (dpeaa)DE-He213 |
| topic |
misc Drug–target interaction prediction misc Binding affinity prediction misc Recommender systems misc Deep learning |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc Drug–target interaction prediction misc Binding affinity prediction misc Recommender systems misc Deep learning |
| topic_browse |
misc Drug–target interaction prediction misc Binding affinity prediction misc Recommender systems misc Deep learning |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
BMC bioinformatics |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
326644814 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
BMC bioinformatics |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)326644814 (DE-600)2041484-5 |
| title |
A comparison of embedding aggregation strategies in drug–target interaction prediction |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)SPR054667941 (SPR)s12859-024-05684-y-e |
| title_full |
A comparison of embedding aggregation strategies in drug–target interaction prediction |
| author_sort |
Iliadis, Dimitrios |
| journal |
BMC bioinformatics |
| journalStr |
BMC bioinformatics |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
true |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2024 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| author_browse |
Iliadis, Dimitrios De Baets, Bernard Pahikkala, Tapio Waegeman, Willem |
| container_volume |
25 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Iliadis, Dimitrios |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1186/s12859-024-05684-y |
| title_sort |
comparison of embedding aggregation strategies in drug–target interaction prediction |
| title_auth |
A comparison of embedding aggregation strategies in drug–target interaction prediction |
| abstract |
Abstract The prediction of interactions between novel drugs and biological targets is a vital step in the early stage of the drug discovery pipeline. Many deep learning approaches have been proposed over the last decade, with a substantial fraction of them sharing the same underlying two-branch architecture. Their distinction is limited to the use of different types of feature representations and branches (multi-layer perceptrons, convolutional neural networks, graph neural networks and transformers). In contrast, the strategy used to combine the outputs (embeddings) of the branches has remained mostly the same. The same general architecture has also been used extensively in the area of recommender systems, where the choice of an aggregation strategy is still an open question. In this work, we investigate the effectiveness of three different embedding aggregation strategies in the area of drug–target interaction (DTI) prediction. We formally define these strategies and prove their universal approximator capabilities. We then present experiments that compare the different strategies on benchmark datasets from the area of DTI prediction, showcasing conditions under which specific strategies could be the obvious choice. © The Author(s) 2024 |
| abstractGer |
Abstract The prediction of interactions between novel drugs and biological targets is a vital step in the early stage of the drug discovery pipeline. Many deep learning approaches have been proposed over the last decade, with a substantial fraction of them sharing the same underlying two-branch architecture. Their distinction is limited to the use of different types of feature representations and branches (multi-layer perceptrons, convolutional neural networks, graph neural networks and transformers). In contrast, the strategy used to combine the outputs (embeddings) of the branches has remained mostly the same. The same general architecture has also been used extensively in the area of recommender systems, where the choice of an aggregation strategy is still an open question. In this work, we investigate the effectiveness of three different embedding aggregation strategies in the area of drug–target interaction (DTI) prediction. We formally define these strategies and prove their universal approximator capabilities. We then present experiments that compare the different strategies on benchmark datasets from the area of DTI prediction, showcasing conditions under which specific strategies could be the obvious choice. © The Author(s) 2024 |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Abstract The prediction of interactions between novel drugs and biological targets is a vital step in the early stage of the drug discovery pipeline. Many deep learning approaches have been proposed over the last decade, with a substantial fraction of them sharing the same underlying two-branch architecture. Their distinction is limited to the use of different types of feature representations and branches (multi-layer perceptrons, convolutional neural networks, graph neural networks and transformers). In contrast, the strategy used to combine the outputs (embeddings) of the branches has remained mostly the same. The same general architecture has also been used extensively in the area of recommender systems, where the choice of an aggregation strategy is still an open question. In this work, we investigate the effectiveness of three different embedding aggregation strategies in the area of drug–target interaction (DTI) prediction. We formally define these strategies and prove their universal approximator capabilities. We then present experiments that compare the different strategies on benchmark datasets from the area of DTI prediction, showcasing conditions under which specific strategies could be the obvious choice. © The Author(s) 2024 |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 |
| container_issue |
1 |
| title_short |
A comparison of embedding aggregation strategies in drug–target interaction prediction |
| url |
https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-024-05684-y |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
De Baets, Bernard Pahikkala, Tapio Waegeman, Willem |
| author2Str |
De Baets, Bernard Pahikkala, Tapio Waegeman, Willem |
| ppnlink |
326644814 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
true |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1186/s12859-024-05684-y |
| up_date |
2024-07-04T02:34:45.845Z |
| _version_ |
1803614144008552448 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR054667941</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240207064625.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">240207s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12859-024-05684-y</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR054667941</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12859-024-05684-y-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Iliadis, Dimitrios</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">A comparison of embedding aggregation strategies in drug–target interaction prediction</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2024</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2024</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract The prediction of interactions between novel drugs and biological targets is a vital step in the early stage of the drug discovery pipeline. Many deep learning approaches have been proposed over the last decade, with a substantial fraction of them sharing the same underlying two-branch architecture. Their distinction is limited to the use of different types of feature representations and branches (multi-layer perceptrons, convolutional neural networks, graph neural networks and transformers). In contrast, the strategy used to combine the outputs (embeddings) of the branches has remained mostly the same. The same general architecture has also been used extensively in the area of recommender systems, where the choice of an aggregation strategy is still an open question. In this work, we investigate the effectiveness of three different embedding aggregation strategies in the area of drug–target interaction (DTI) prediction. We formally define these strategies and prove their universal approximator capabilities. We then present experiments that compare the different strategies on benchmark datasets from the area of DTI prediction, showcasing conditions under which specific strategies could be the obvious choice.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Drug–target interaction prediction</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Binding affinity prediction</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Recommender systems</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Deep learning</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">De Baets, Bernard</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Pahikkala, Tapio</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Waegeman, Willem</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC bioinformatics</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2000</subfield><subfield code="g">25(2024), 1 vom: 06. Feb.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)326644814</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2041484-5</subfield><subfield code="x">1471-2105</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:25</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2024</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:06</subfield><subfield code="g">month:02</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-024-05684-y</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2031</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2057</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4326</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">25</subfield><subfield code="j">2024</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">06</subfield><subfield code="c">02</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.400935 |