| Literature DB >> 31320740 |
Mohan Timilsina1, Meera Tandan2, Mathieu d'Aquin3, Haixuan Yang4.
Abstract
Identifying the unintended effects of drugs (side effects) is a very important issue in pharmacological studies. The laboratory verification of associations between drugs and side effects requires costly, time-intensive research. Thus, an approach to predicting drug side effects based on known side effects, using a computational model, is highly desirable. To provide such a model, we used openly available data resources to model drugs and side effects as a bipartite graph. The drug-drug network is constructed using the word2vec model where the edges between drugs represent the semantic similarity between them. We integrated the bipartite graph and the semantic similarity graph using a matrix factorization method and a diffusion based model. Our results show the effectiveness of this integration by computing weighted (i.e., ranked) predictions of initially unknown links between side effects and drugs.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31320740 PMCID: PMC6639365 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-46939-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Summary of Side Effect-Drug and Drug-Drug Network.
| Node Types | Property |
|---|---|
| Number of Drug Nodes | 1020 |
| Number of Side Effect Nodes | 5598 |
| Number of Side effect and Drug relationships | 133750 |
| Number of Drug-Drug relationships | 519690 |
Figure 1An example of side effect-drug bipartite graph and drug-drug similarity graph.
Figure 2Side effects propagation in a drug-drug similarity network.
Figure 3AUPR curve based on 10-fold cross-validation. The Blue line represents the Mean AUPR score.
Figure 4Link prediction results for the different state of the art methods. Each bar-chart shows the mean AUPR score for predicting links between side effects and drugs. The error bar represents the standard deviation obtained from the 10 Fold cross validation.
p-values of the t-test at significance level α = 0.05, *** indicates high significance.
| Methods | P-value |
|---|---|
| Heat Diffusion With NMF Vs NMF | 7.247e-12*** |
| Heat Diffusion With NMF Vs Heat Diffusion | 1.253e-15*** |
| Heat Diffusion With NMF Vs Personalized Page Rank | 2.2e-16*** |
| Heat Diffusion With NMF Vs Katz | 1.685e-14*** |
| Heat Diffusion With NMF Vs Adamic Adar | 2.2e-16*** |
| Heat Diffusion With NMF Vs Resource Allocation | 5.925e-10*** |
| Heat Diffusion With NMF Vs Common Neighbors | 2.2e-16*** |
| Heat Diffusion With NMF Vs Random | 2.2e-16*** |
Figure 5Histogram of P-values from Permutation test. The X-axis is in log base 10 scale.
Figure 6Performance of the NMF-based Heat diffusion algorithm using different training sizes. The Y-axis represents the mean AUPR score.
Examples of ranking performance for common and severe side effects.
| Common Side Effects | AUPR | Severe Side Effects | AUPR |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constipation | 0.89 | Suicide | 0.46 |
| Diarrhoea | 0.95 | Depression | 0.63 |
| Nausea | 0.95 | Angioedema | 0.72 |
| Fatigue | 0.92 | Anaemia | 0.82 |
| Vomiting | 0.97 | Erectile dysfunction | 0.66 |
| Rash | 0.96 | Mania | 0.54 |
| Dizziness | 0.96 | Asthma | 0.68 |
| Insomnia | 0.91 | Gastric ulcer | 0.33 |
| Tremor | 0.82 | Muscle twitching | 0.60 |