| Literature DB >> 33631276 |
Zeheng Wang1, Liang Li2, Miao Song3, Jing Yan4, Junjie Shi5, Yuanzhe Yao6.
Abstract
ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE: The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak in Wuhan has imposed a huge influence in terms of public health and economy on society. However, no effective drugs or vaccines have been developed so far. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) has been considered as a promising supplementary treatment of this disease due to its clinically proven performance in many severe diseases, like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). Meanwhile, many reports suggest that the side-effects (SE) of TCM prescriptions cannot be ignored in treating COVID-19 as it often leads to dramatic degradation of the patients' physical condition. Systematic evaluation of TCM regarding its latent SE becomes a burning issue. AIM: In this study, we used an ontology-based side-effect prediction framework (OSPF) developed from our previous work and Artificial Neural Network (ANN)-based deep learning, to evaluate the TCM prescriptions officially recommended by China for the treatment of COVID-19.Entities:
Keywords: Artificial intelligence; Covid-19; Deep learning; Novel corona virus; Side effect; Traditional Chinese medicine
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33631276 PMCID: PMC7899032 DOI: 10.1016/j.jep.2021.113957
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ethnopharmacol ISSN: 0378-8741 Impact factor: 4.360
Fig. 1Data stream of SI prediction.
Cross-reference of Chinese and English names of TCM prescriptions used in this work. The scientific names of all botanical plants are listed in the supplemental material.
| Index | Chinese Name | Hanyu Pinyin | Abbreviation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 桑菊感冒片 | Sangju ganmaopian | SJ-GMP |
| 2 | 芎芷香苏散 | Xiongzhixiangsu san | XZXS-S |
| 3 | 加减羌活五积散 | Jiajianqianghuowuji san | JJQHWJ-S |
| 4 | 百解散 | Baijie san | BJ-S |
| 5 | 相传汤 | Xiangchuan tang | XC-T |
| 6 | 顺气人参散 | Shunqirenshen san | SQRS-S |
| 7 | 柴陈煎 | Chaichen jian | CC-J |
| 8 | 柴胡半夏汤 | Chaihubanxia tang | CHBX-T |
| 9 | 清肺饮 | Qingfei yin | QF-Y |
| 10 | 清瘟解毒汤 | Qingwenjiedu tang | QWJD-T |
| 11 | 藿香正气水 | Huoxiangzhengqi shui | HXZQ-S |
| 12 | 抗病毒冲剂 | Kangbingdu chongji | KBD-CJ |
| 13 | 金花清感颗粒 | Jinhuaqinggan keli | JHQG-KL |
| 14 | 连花清瘟胶囊 | Lianhuaqingwen jiaonang | LHQW-JN |
| 15 | 疏风解毒胶囊 | Shufengjiedu jiaonang | SFJD-JN |
| 16 | 防风通圣丸 | Fangfengtongsheng wan | FFTS-W |
| 17 | 初期方子 | Chuqifangzi | PESP |
| 18 | 中期方子 | Zhongqifangzi | PMSP |
| 19 | 血必静注射剂 | Xuebijing zhusheji | XBJ-ZSJ |
| 20 | 重症期方子1 | Zhongzhengqifangzi1 | PSSP1 |
| 21 | 重症期方子2 | Zhongzhengqifangzi2 | PSSP2 |
| 22 | 参附注射液 | Shenfu zhusheye | SF-ZSY |
| 23 | 生脉注射液 | Shengmai zhusheye | SM-ZSY |
| 24 | 恢复期方子 | HuifuqiFangzi | PRSP |
| 25 | 双黄连口服液 | Shuanghuanlian koufuye | SHL-KFY |
| 26 | 桂枝汤冲剂 | Guizhitang chongji | GZT-CJ |
| 27 | 牛黄上清丸 | Niuhuangshangqing wan | NHSQ-W |
| 28 | 清肺排毒汤 | Qingfeipaidu tang | QFPD-T |
| 29 | 寒湿郁肺方 | Hanshiyufen fang | HSYF-F |
| 30 | 湿热藴肺方 | Shireyunfei fang | SRYF-F |
| 31 | 湿毒郁肺方 | Shiduyufei fang | SDYF-F |
| 32 | 寒湿阻肺方 | Hanshizufei fang | HSZF-F |
| 33 | 化湿败毒方 | Huashibaidu fang | HSBD-F |
| 34 | 气营两燔方 | Qiyingliangfan fang | QYLF-F |
| 35 | 内闭外脱方 | Neibiwaituo fang | NBWT-F |
| 36 | 肺脾气虚方 | Feipiqixu fang | FPQX-F |
| 37 | 气阴两虚方 | Qiyinliangxu fang | QYLX-F |
| 38 | 宣肺败毒方 | Xuanfeibaidu fang | XFBD-F |
Fig. 2Prediction results of the TCM safety indicator (SI) in the group of (a) officially recommended list and (b) other common prescriptions in treating flu-like diseases.
Fig. 3A reorganized list of TCM prescriptions based on the predicted mean SI score.
Fig. 4The ACC and loss of the model versus iteration number.
ANN results.
| Accuracy | Sensitive | Specificity | Macro-F1 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.935 | 0.996 | 0.716 | 0.854 | |
| 0.929 | 0.993 | 0.761 | 0.858 | |
| 0.926 | 0.996 | 0.700 | 0.847 | |
| 0.938 | 0.996 | 0.711 | 0.849 | |
| 0.935 | 0.997 | 0.756 | 0.878 | |
| 0.923 | 0.993 | 0.653 | 0.823 | |
| 0.923 | 0.996 | 0.713 | 0.847 | |
| 0.932 | 0.993 | 0.678 | 0.839 | |
| 0.938 | 0.996 | 0.676 | 0.851 | |
| 0.941 | 0.996 | 0.733 | 0.860 | |
| 0.932 | 0.995 | 0.710 | 0.850 |
Fig. 5SI derived from two models: one contained the hot or cold property of herbs, whereas the other did not. The rank test was applied (p < 0.05, BF corrected).
Fig. 6The process of analyzing the relationship between SIs derived from the 12 TCM CPs by an ANN model and the nodal measures throughout the ingredients-target networks of these TCM CPs. The Spearman correlation coefficient is significant (p < 0.05).
Spearman correlation results.
| Ingredients name | r | p | Measure Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pyrethrin I | 0.587 | 0.045 | Betweenness |
| Pyrethrin I | 0.585 | 0.046 | Degree |
| Cinnamic Aldehyde | 0.615 | 0.033 | Betweenness |
| Cinnamic Aldehyde | 0.641 | 0.025 | Degree |
| Melilotocarpan A | 0.615 | 0.033 | Betweenness |
| Melilotocarpan A | 0.641 | 0.025 | Degree |
| Trans-Cinnamic Acid | 0.615 | 0.033 | Betweenness |
| Trans-Cinnamic Acid | 0.641 | 0.025 | Degree |
| Proanthocyanidin B2 | 0.782 | 0.003 | Betweenness |
| Proanthocyanidin B2 | 0.819 | 0.001 | Degree |
| Dihydromelilotoside | 0.615 | 0.033 | Betweenness |
| Dihydromelilotoside | 0.641 | 0.025 | Degree |
| Coumarinic Acid | 0.615 | 0.033 | Betweenness |
| Coumarinic Acid | 0.641 | 0.025 | Degree |
| Protocatechuic Acid | 0.615 | 0.033 | Betweenness |
| Protocatechuic Acid | 0.641 | 0.025 | Degree |
| Procurcumenol | 0.782 | 0.003 | Betweenness |
| Procurcumenol | 0.819 | 0.001 | Degree |
| 2-Methoxycinnamaldehyde | 0.615 | 0.033 | Betweenness |
| 2-Methoxycinnamaldehyde | 0.641 | 0.025 | Degree |