4.6 Article

Predicting potential side effects of drugs by recommender methods and ensemble learning

期刊

NEUROCOMPUTING
卷 173, 期 -, 页码 979-987

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.neucom.2015.08.054

关键词

Drug side effects; Recommender system; Ensemble learning; Restricted Boltzmann machine

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61103126, 61572368]
  2. Shenzhen Development Foundation [JCYJ20130401160028781]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Drugs provide help and promise for human health, but they usually come with side effects. Predicting side effects of drugs is a critical issue for the drug discovery. Although several machine-learning methods were proposed to predict the drug side effects, it remains the space for the improvement. To the best of our knowledge, many side effects are not detectable in clinical trials until drugs are approved, thus predicting potential or missing side effects based on the known side effects is important for the post-marketing surveillance. In order to solve this specific problem, we formulate approved drugs, side effect terms and drug-side effect associations as a recommender system, and transform the problem of predicting side effects into a recommender task. Two recommender methods, i.e. the integrated neighborhood-based method and the restricted Boltzmann machine-based method, are designed to make predictions. Further, in order to achieve better performances, we combine proposed methods and existing methods of the same type to develop ensemble models. Compared with benchmark methods, the proposed methods and the ensemble method lead to better performances, and the statistical analysis demonstrates the improvements are significant (p-value < 0.05). In conclusion, the integrated neighborhood-based method, the restricted Boltzmann machine-based method and the ensemble method are promising tools for the side effect prediction. The source codes and datasets are provided as the supplementary. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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