Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 130 references

CoFEND: A Cross-Modal Fusion End-to-End Network for Cold-Start Drug-Drug Interaction Prediction

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-12 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Cold-start drug interaction prediction works better when four biomedical views of each drug are fused end-to-end, not scored offline.

desk verdict Solid multi-view cold-start DDI model with real tables and ablations; the main open question is whether the four KGs fully isolate held-out drugs. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.02928 v1 pith:SI6O6ZVK submitted 2026-07-03 cs.LG

Di Wu , Hongyi Sun , Haichao Xu , Jia Chen , Zhong Chen , Jie Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords drug-druginteractionscold-startpredictionknowledgegraphcross-modallearningautoencoderinterpretabilitymulti-modalfusion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Predicting how a brand-new drug will interact with existing ones is hard because the new drug has no interaction history. The authors argue that the right way to handle this is to treat similarity as something that must be learned jointly from several biomedical views of each drug, then used immediately for interaction prediction, rather than computed separately and fed in later. They build four drug-centered knowledge graphs—proteins (enzymes and transporters), Morgan fingerprints, selected MACCS keys, and chemistry-rule motifs—and train a four-channel graph autoencoder whose reconstruction losses and interaction-classification loss are optimized together. A two-stage masking procedure then attributes which modality and which entity pairs drive both the perpetrator’s aggressiveness and the victim’s susceptibility. On two DrugBank-derived cold-start benchmarks the resulting model outperforms eight recent baselines under multi-class metrics and Friedman ranking, while supplying dual-sided mechanistic explanations that earlier single-view methods largely omit.

What carries the argument

Four-channel graph autoencoder with joint loss L = L_label + Σ λ_k L_edge_k: each channel is a GCN encoder–decoder pair that reconstructs its own drug–entity edges while the concatenated drug embeddings feed an MLP that predicts DDI type; the shared gradient couples similarity learning to the prediction task.

What would settle it

Re-run the identical five-fold cold-start protocol after systematically ablating or randomizing one or more of the four graphs (or after replacing the joint loss with offline similarity features); if the accuracy and Friedman-rank gains disappear, the claimed benefit of end-to-end cross-modal fusion is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

CMF-ELN shows that cold-start multi-class DDI prediction accuracy rises when four modality-specific drug knowledge graphs are encoded by parallel graph autoencoders and fused inside a single end-to-end objective that jointly reconstructs drug–entity relations and classifies interaction types; the same fused representation also supports a two-stage attribution that localizes risk factors for both the perpetrator and the victim drug.

Load-bearing premise

The four hand-built drug–entity graphs, especially the reduced set of 13 MACCS keys and chemistry-rule motifs, must encode a similarity geometry that still holds for completely held-out drug types under the paper’s fold protocol.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Cold-start DDI predictors should keep similarity learning and interaction classification inside one gradient path rather than pre-computing fixed multi-modal similarity matrices.
  • Protein, fingerprint, key, and motif channels are complementary; dropping any of them, especially the protein channel, measurably weakens multi-class accuracy.
  • Interpretability for DDI can and should attribute both the perpetrator’s aggressive factors and the victim’s susceptibility, not only the former.
  • When new drugs arrive with incomplete annotations, the reconstruction-supervised multi-channel design still supplies usable embeddings for interaction prediction.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same four-channel end-to-end pattern could transfer to other cold-start biomedical link tasks (drug–target, drug–side-effect) that already possess multi-view entity graphs.
  • Because the method relies on fixed chemistry-rule motifs and a curated MACCS subset, future work that learns motifs or expands key coverage may further reduce the gap on (new,new) pairs.
  • Dual-end attribution could be turned into a clinical triage tool that flags both high-risk perpetrators and especially vulnerable victims for experimental follow-up.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes CMF-ELN, an end-to-end multi-modal framework for cold-start drug–drug interaction (DDI) prediction. It builds four drug-centered knowledge graphs (protein/enzyme–transporter, Morgan fingerprints, selected MACCS keys, and chemistry-rule motifs), encodes each with a GCN-based graph autoencoder under edge-reconstruction supervision (Eqs. 1–6), fuses the four drug embeddings via concatenation and an MLP for multi-class DDI prediction (Eqs. 7–9), and jointly optimizes label and reconstruction losses (Eq. 10). A two-stage perturbation scheme attributes dominant modalities and tail-entity pairs for both perpetrator and victim drugs. On two DrugBank-derived datasets, under five-fold cold-start splits for (known,new) and (new,new) pairs, CMF-ELN reports the best Friedman ranks against eight baselines, with Wilcoxon p-values < 0.05, plus modality ablations and embedding visualizations.

Significance. Cold-start DDI prediction is practically important and methodologically hard because new drugs lack interaction labels and often have incomplete multimodal annotations. If the reported gains hold under a truly inductive protocol, the paper offers a useful integration of multi-view biomedical graphs with joint similarity–prediction training and a dual-sided interpretability pipeline that goes beyond single-modality perpetrator analysis. Strengths include a clear multi-channel design, joint supervision aligning reconstruction with DDI labels, broad multi-metric comparison with statistical tests, modality ablations (Table 3), and public code/data. These make the work a credible empirical contribution to multimodal biomedical graph learning, contingent on resolving whether the cold-start protocol fully isolates held-out drugs in the knowledge graphs.

major comments (3)
  1. Section 5.2 states that one-fifth of drug types are designated “new” and “all associated DDI pairs” form the test set, but never states whether triples involving those drugs are removed from the four modality graphs used by the GCN encoders (Eq. 2) and edge losses (Eq. 6). If protein, fingerprint, MACCS, or motif links of held-out drugs remain in the adjacency matrices during training, neighborhood aggregation and shared-tail reconstruction can embed “new” drugs non-inductively. This is load-bearing for the central cold-start claim. Please specify the isolation protocol for each channel, and if graphs currently include cold-start drugs, re-run Task 1/2 with those triples removed (or provide a controlled leakage ablation).
  2. Section 4.3 and the dual-end interpretability claim: victim evidence is fixed a priori to modality 1 (enzyme-related features) following MeT-DDI’s mechanistic chain, while only the perpetrator modality is selected by size-calibrated masking (Eqs. 11–13). This design choice undercuts the claim of discovering “underlying causes of susceptibility for the victim drug” in a multi-modal, data-driven way. Either (i) allow Stage-1 to select victim modality as well and report agreement with enzyme-centric ground truth, or (ii) reframe the contribution as perpetrator-side multi-modal attribution under a fixed victim enzyme hypothesis, with quantitative recovery metrics on the MeT-DDI evaluation cases rather than Top-1 ranking alone.
  3. Eq. (10) and free parameters: the joint objective depends on four reconstruction weights λ_k, embedding size (set to 128), and the hand-selected subset of 13 MACCS keys (Section 4.1), none of which receive sensitivity analysis. Table 3 ablates channel presence but not λ_k or MACCS selection. Because the paper’s claim is that reconstruction-supervised cross-modal fusion is what drives cold-start gains, please report λ_k values used, a small sensitivity study (e.g., λ_k ∈ {0, 0.1, 1}), and a brief justification or ablation for retaining only 13 MACCS keys versus the full key set.
minor comments (6)
  1. Title/branding inconsistency: the arXiv-facing title uses “CoFEND” in the provided metadata while the manuscript body consistently uses “CMF-ELN.” Align naming across title, abstract, and repository.
  2. Table 1, Dataset 2: CMF-ELN loses F1 to MDDI-SCL (0.6171 vs 0.6322) and is not best on Pre; the text’s “significantly higher … than its peers” should acknowledge metric-level exceptions rather than only aggregate Win/Loss and Friedman rank.
  3. Figure 2: Silhouette and KNN accuracy are mentioned in the text but not reported as numbers in the figure caption or a small table; add the quantitative values for the fused vs unimodal embeddings.
  4. Section 2.4 is disproportionately long relative to its direct relevance to DDI cold-start and reads as a broad latent-factor/GNN survey; consider tightening to work that directly motivates multi-modal sparsity handling in biomedical graphs.
  5. Notation: embedding dimension is written as both D and C (Eqs. 3 vs 7); unify. Also clarify whether relation types C_k in Eq. (6) are multi-class beyond a binary “include” for Morgan/MACCS/motif channels.
  6. Implementation details (Section 5.1) omit batch size, number of epochs, early stopping, and how multi-class AUPR/AUC are macro/micro-averaged for 4 vs 86 DDI types; add these for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

Standard supervised multi-modal GNN for cold-start DDI; held-out metrics are not forced by construction. Only minor non-load-bearing self-citation density in related-work motivation.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 2.4 Representation Learning for Incomplete and Heterogeneous Data]
    "A series of latent factor and feature-selection models by Wu, Luo, and collaborators investigate robust representations for high-dimensional sparse matrices, online streams, and web-service quality prediction [45, 73–89, 92, 93, 98, 99, 111]. Recent tensor, federated, and autoencoding extensions further emphasize learning reliable latent structure from dynamic, privacy-sensitive, and partially observed data [3, 8, 17, 23, 25, 28, 34–36, 39, 46, 48, 59–61, 66, 68, 94, 95, 100, 106, 107, 110, 112, 119]."

    Large block of overlapping-author citations frames the incomplete-data motivation. Not load-bearing for the paper’s central claim (superior cold-start DDI accuracy on held-out pairs): no uniqueness theorem is imported, and Tables 1–2 compare against independent baselines on DrugBank. Minor self-citation density only; does not force the reported metrics.

full rationale

CMF-ELN is an empirical ML method: four drug-centered KGs feed a four-channel GAE whose embeddings are fused by an MLP and trained with the joint objective L = L_label + Σ λ_k L_edge_k (Eqs. 6–10). Test metrics in Tables 1–2 come from five-fold cold-start splits that hold out drug types and their DDI pairs; those metrics are not algebraically determined by the reconstruction losses or by any fitted scalar renamed as a prediction. There is no uniqueness theorem, no ansatz smuggled in as a forced form, and no self-definitional identity between a claimed first-principles result and its inputs. Dense citations to the authors’ prior latent-factor / incomplete-data work (Sec. 2.4) motivate representation learning under sparsity but do not underwrite the DDI accuracy claims, which rest on external DrugBank baselines. Possible KG leakage of cold-start drugs’ entity links (if any) is a methodology/generalization risk, not circularity by construction. Score 1 only for non-load-bearing self-citation volume; central derivation chain is self-contained empirical evaluation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central accuracy claim rests on standard multi-class learning assumptions plus domain choices about which biomedical views define drug similarity. Free parameters are ordinary ML hyperparameters and loss weights. No new physical entities are postulated; the invented objects are architectural. The load-bearing domain axiom is that the four constructed graphs plus reconstruction supervision are sufficient proxies for cold-start pharmacological similarity.

free parameters (4)
  • λ_k reconstruction loss weights (k=1..4)
    Control trade-off between DDI classification and each modality’s edge reconstruction; values not fully reported but required for the joint objective in Eq. (10).
  • embedding dimension D / C (set to 128)
    Chosen implementation hyperparameter that shapes capacity of all GAE channels and the fused MLP.
  • learning rate 1e-3 and regularization 1e-6
    Training hyperparameters stated in implementation details; affect reported metrics.
  • selected 13 MACCS keys retained as entities
    Hand-reduced feature set for the Drug-MACCS graph; selection rule is not derived from first principles and changes the modality graph.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Drug similarity relevant to cold-start DDI can be adequately captured by protein (enzyme/transporter), Morgan bit, MACCS key, and motif inclusion graphs.
    Foundation of multi-modal KG construction in §4.1; if false, fusion cannot recover missing pharmacological mechanisms.
  • domain assumption Holding out one-fifth of drug types and all associated pairs yields a valid cold-start evaluation of new drugs.
    Evaluation protocol in §5.2; leakage via shared entities or incomplete isolation would inflate results.
  • ad hoc to paper Multi-class cross-entropy on DDI types plus edge reconstruction is an appropriate joint objective for similarity–prediction alignment.
    Eqs. (6)–(10) define the paper’s end-to-end training principle rather than a standard theorem.
  • domain assumption Victim-side evidence can be fixed to enzyme-related modality 1 when attributing mechanisms, following MeT-DDI’s inhibition narrative.
    Stated in §4.3 dual-end interpretability setup; shapes all two-stage explanations.
  • standard math Standard GCN neighborhood aggregation and MLP classifiers are valid representation learners on these heterogeneous graphs.
    Uses conventional GCN/MLP math (Eqs. 1–5, 8–9) without new theoretical guarantees.
invented entities (2)
  • CMF-ELN four-channel graph autoencoder + MLP fusion architecture
    purpose: Unify multi-modal similarity learning and cold-start DDI classification in one trainable pipeline.
    Primary proposed system; independent evidence is only the paper’s own benchmarks, not external theory.
  • Two-stage size-calibrated modality-then-tail masking interpretability scheme
    purpose: Localize dominant modality and key entity pairs for perpetrator and victim drugs.
    Attribution procedure defined in §4.3; not independently validated against wet-lab mechanism labels beyond narrative alignment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CoFEND: A Cross-Modal Fusion End-to-End Network for Cold-Start Drug-Drug Interaction Prediction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SI6O6ZVK

@misc{pith2026260702928,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CoFEND: A Cross-Modal Fusion End-to-End Network for Cold-Start Drug-Drug Interaction Prediction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SI6O6ZVK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.02928}
}
read the original abstract

Cold-start drug-drug interaction (DDI) prediction for new drugs is critical for minimizing unexpected adverse drug reactions. The key challenge is to capture similarity between new and known drugs. However, such similarity is closely associated with complex relationships and mechanisms among drugs, enzymes, transporters, molecular structures, and other biomedical entities. Existing methods have three limitations in capturing such similarity: (1) only partial relationships and mechanisms are considered, which overlooks cross-modal information and yields incomplete or biased similarity modeling; (2) similarity computation between new and known drugs is conducted separately across modalities and performed offline for cold-start DDI prediction, leading to misalignment between similarity computation and DDI prediction; and (3) existing interpretability analyses are typically single-modality and focus primarily on key determinants of the perpetrator drug, while the underlying causes of susceptibility for the victim drug are seldom investigated. To address these issues, this paper proposes a novel Cross-Modal-Fused End-to-End Learning Network (CMF-ELN) with three components. First, diverse multimodal information is leveraged to construct four types of drug-centered knowledge graphs, enabling comprehensive similarity modeling under reconstruction-based supervision. Second, a four-channel graph autoencoder is designed to fuse cross-modal similarity within an end-to-end learning framework. Finally, a two-stage interpretability scheme is devised to precisely localize key factors for both perpetrator and victim drugs. Extensive experiments on two real datasets demonstrate that CMF-ELN achieves significantly higher prediction accuracy and more comprehensive interpretability of mechanisms than its peers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02928 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) The overall structure of the proposed CMF-ELN model. (b) Two-stage interpretability algorithm schematic for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Representation analysis of CMF-ELN. t-SNE visualization of drug-pair embeddings for Task 1 on Dataset 2, comparing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

130 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    E Amiri Souri, Roman Laddach, SN Karagiannis, Lazaros G Papageorgiou, and Sophia Tsoka. 2022. Novel drug-target interactions via link prediction and network embedding.BMC bioinformatics23, 1 (2022), 121

    2022

  2. [2]

    F. Bi, T. He, Y. S. Ong, and X. Luo. 2024. Graph Linear Convolution Pooling for Learning in Incomplete High-Dimensional Data.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering37, 4 (2024), 1838–1852

    2024

  3. [3]

    J. Chen, K. Liu, X. Luo, Y. Yuan, K. Sedraoui, Y. Al-Turki, and M. C. Zhou. 2024. A State-Migration Particle Swarm Optimizer for Adaptive Latent Factor Analysis of High-Dimensional and Incomplete Data.IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica11, 11 (2024), 2220–2235

    2024

  4. [4]

    J. Chen, X. Luo, Y. Yuan, and Z. Wang. 2025. Enhancing Graph Convolutional Networks with an Efficient k-Hop Neighborhood Approach.Information Fusion 124 (2025), 103297

    2025

  5. [5]

    J. Chen, Y. Yuan, and X. Luo. 2024. SDGNN: Symmetry-Preserving Dual-Stream Graph Neural Networks.IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica11, 7 (2024), 1717–1719

    2024

  6. [6]

    J. Chen, Y. Yuan, X. Luo, and X. Gao. 2025. An Adaptive Neighborhood-Resonated Graph Convolution Network for Undirected Weighted Graph Representation. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems(2025)

    2025

  7. [7]

    Lifan Chen, Xiaoqin Tan, Dingyan Wang, Feisheng Zhong, Xiaohong Liu, Tian- biao Yang, Xiaomin Luo, Kaixian Chen, Hualiang Jiang, and Mingyue Zheng

  8. [8]

    TransformerCPI: improving compound–protein interaction prediction by sequence-based deep learning with self-attention mechanism and label reversal experiments.Bioinformatics36, 16 (2020), 4406–4414

    2020

Show all 130 references
  1. [9]

    M. Chen, R. Wang, Y. Qiao, and X. Luo. 2024. A Generalized Nesterov’s Accel- erated Gradient-Incorporated Non-Negative Latent-Factorization-of-Tensors Model for Efficient Representation to Dynamic QoS Data.IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence8, 3 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    M. Chen, M. Zhang, and C. Qu. 2025. Towards Interpretable Drug-Drug Interac- tion Prediction: A Graph-Based Approach with Molecular and Network-Level Explanations. InProceedings of the 31st ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD ’25). ACM, 203–214

    2025

  3. [11]

    Thomas Cover and Peter Hart. 1967. Nearest neighbor pattern classification. IEEE transactions on information theory13, 1 (1967), 21–27

    1967

  4. [12]

    Jorg Degen, Christof Wegscheid-Gerlach, Andrea Zaliani, and Matthias Rarey

  5. [13]

    ChemMedChem3, 10 (2008), 1503

    On the art of compiling and using’drug-like’chemical fragment spaces. ChemMedChem3, 10 (2008), 1503

    2008

  6. [14]

    Janez Demšar. 2006. Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets.Journal of Machine learning research7, Jan (2006), 1–30. CMF-ELN: A Cross-Modal-Fused End-to-end Learning Network for Cold-Start Drug-Drug Interaction Prediction KDD ’26, August 09–13, 2026, Jej...

    2006

  7. [15]

    Y. Deng, X. Xu, Y. Qiu, et al. 2020. A multimodal deep learning framework for predicting drug–drug interaction events.Bioinformatics36, 15 (2020), 4316– 4322

    2020

  8. [16]

    Joseph L Durant, Burton A Leland, Douglas R Henry, and James G Nourse. 2002. Reoptimization of MDL keys for use in drug discovery.Journal of chemical information and computer sciences42, 6 (2002), 1273–1280

    2002

  9. [17]

    Feng, S.-W

    Y. Feng, S.-W. Zhang, and J.-Y. Shi. 2020. DPDDI: A deep predictor for drug–drug interactions.BMC Bioinformatics21, 1 (Sept. 2020), 419

    2020

  10. [18]

    Milton Friedman. 1937. The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance.Journal of the american statistical association 32, 200 (1937), 675–701

    1937

  11. [19]

    J. X. Gao, D. Wu, J. Chen, M. Zhou, and X. Luo. 2025. Federated Deep Latent Factor Model for Privacy-Preserving Recommendation. InProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics

    2025

  12. [20]

    Assaf Gottlieb, Gideon Y Stein, Yoram Oron, Eytan Ruppin, and Roded Sharan

  13. [21]

    INDI: a computational framework for inferring drug interactions and their associated recommendations.Molecular systems biology8, 1 (2012), 592

    2012

  14. [22]

    J. Gou, Y. Cheng, B. Ma, L. Du, X. Luo, and Z. Yi. 2025. Multi-Scale Collaborative Distillation Graph Neural Networks for Session-Based Recommendation.IEEE Transactions on Services Computing(2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    M. Han, L. Wang, Y. Yuan, and X. Luo. 2025. SGD-DYG: Self-Reliant Global Dependency Apprehending on Dynamic Graphs. InProceedings of the ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining

    2025

  16. [24]

    T. He, Z. Duan, and X. Luo. 2026. Modularized Graph Convolutional Network. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica13, 3 (2026), 737–739

    2026

  17. [25]

    T. He, Y. Liu, Y. S. Ong, X. Wu, and X. Luo. 2024. Polarized Message-Passing in Graph Neural Networks.Artificial Intelligence331 (2024), 104129

    2024

  18. [26]

    He and X

    Y. He and X. Luo. 2026. Tensor Low-Rank Orthogonal Compression for Convo- lutional Neural Networks.IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica13, 1 (2026), 227–229

    2026

  19. [27]

    Yi He, Tengfei Ma, Chen Li, et al. 2025. ImageDDI: Image-enhanced molecular motif sequence representation for drug-drug interaction prediction.Information Fusion117 (2025), 103574. doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2024.103574

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    Y. He, H. Wu, W. Liu, and X. Luo. 2026. A Survey of Latent Factorization of Tensor-Based Model Compression: Algorithms, Toolboxes and Future Directions. Neurocomputing(2026), 133455

    2026

  21. [29]

    Z. He, M. Lin, X. Luo, and Z. Xu. 2024. Structure-Preserved Self-Attention for Fusion Image Information in Multiple Color Spaces.IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems36, 7 (2024), 13021–13035

    2024

  22. [30]

    Y. Hong, P. Luo, S. Jin, and X. Liu. 2022. LaGAT: link-aware graph attention network for drug–drug interaction prediction.Bioinformatics38, 24 (2022), 5406–5412

    2022

  23. [31]

    Y. Hou, P. Tang, and X. Luo. 2026. Multi-Aspect Self-Attending Neural Tucker Factorization for Spatiotemporal Representation Learning.IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica13, 4 (2026), 986–988

    2026

  24. [32]

    Z. Hou, X. Liu, Y. Cen, et al. 2022. Graphmae: Self-supervised masked graph autoencoders. InProceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. 594–604

    2022

  25. [33]

    Kexin Huang, Tianfan Fu, Lucas M Glass, Marinka Zitnik, Cao Xiao, and Jimeng Sun. 2020. DeepPurpose: a deep learning library for drug–target interaction prediction.Bioinformatics36, 22-23 (2020), 5545–5547

    2020

  26. [34]

    Glass, and Jimeng Sun

    Kexin Huang, Cao Xiao, Lucas M. Glass, and Jimeng Sun. 2021. Molecular Interaction Transformer for drug–target interaction prediction.Bioinformatics 37, 6 (2021), 830–836. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa880

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    Kexin Huang, Cao Xiao, Trong Hoang, Lucas Glass, and Jimeng Sun. 2020. Caster: Predicting drug interactions with chemical substructure representation. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, Vol. 34. 702–709

    2020

  28. [36]

    C. Li, P. Huang, J. Qin, and X. Luo. 2025. Knowledge-Driven Multiple Instance Learning with Hierarchical Cluster-Incorporated Aware Filtering for Larynx Pathological Grading.IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics(2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    J. Li, Y. Yuan, T. He, and X. Luo. 2026. Adaptive PID-Incorporated Nonnegative Latent Factor Analysis.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems(2026)

    2026

  30. [38]

    X. Liao, H. Wu, T. He, and X. Luo. 2025. A Proximal-ADMM-Incorporated Nonnegative Latent-Factorization-of-Tensors Model for Representing Dynamic Cryptocurrency Transaction Network.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems(2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    X. Liao, H. Wu, and X. Luo. 2025. A Novel Tensor Causal Convolution Network Model for Highly-Accurate Representation to Spatio-Temporal Data.IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering(2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    L. Lin, Q. Li, M. Qiao, Z. Wang, J. Zhao, R. H. Li, X. Luo, and T. Jia. 2025. NCSAC: Effective Neural Community Search via Attribute-Augmented Conductance. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering38, 2 (2025), 1221–1235

    2025

  33. [41]

    Lin and X

    L. Lin and X. Luo. 2026. Dual Channel Graph Convolutional Networks via Personalized PageRank.IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica13, 1 (2026), 221–223

    2026

  34. [42]

    M. Lin, X. Lin, X. Xu, Z. Xu, and X. Luo. 2025. Neural Networks-Incorporated Latent Factor Analysis for High-Dimensional and Incomplete Data.IEEE Trans- actions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems(2025)

    2025

  35. [43]

    S. Lin, W. Chen, G. Chen, et al. 2022. MDDI-SCL: predicting multi-type drug-drug interactions via supervised contrastive learning.Journal of Cheminformatics14, 1 (2022), 1–12

    2022

  36. [44]

    S. Lin, Y. Wang, L. Zhang, et al . 2022. MDF-SA-DDI: Predicting drug–drug interaction events based on multi-source drug fusion, multi-source feature fusion and transformer self-attention mechanism.Briefings in Bioinformatics 23, 1 (2022), bbab421. doi:10.1093/bib/bbab421

    2022 doi

  37. [45]

    X. Lin, Z. Quan, Z.-J. Wang, T. Ma, and X. Zeng. 2020. KGNN: Knowledge Graph Neural Network for Drug-Drug Interaction Prediction.IJCAI380 (2020), 2739–2745

    2020

  38. [46]

    J. Liu, X. Shen, X. Zhang, and H. Chen. 2022. Predicting drug–drug interactions by graph convolutional network with multi-kernel.Briefings in Bioinformatics 23, 1 (Jan. 2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Liu, X.-N

    Z. Liu, X.-N. Wang, H. Yu, J.-Y. Shi, and W.-M. Dong. 2022. Predict multi-type drug–drug interactions in cold-start scenario.BMC Bioinformatics23, 1 (Feb. 2022), 75

    2022

  40. [48]

    Xin Luo, MengChu Zhou, Shuai Li, Di Wu, Zhigang Liu, and Mingsheng Shang

  41. [49]

    doi:10.1109/ TBDATA.2019.2916868

    Algorithms of Unconstrained Non-Negative Latent Factor Analysis for Recommender Systems.IEEE Transactions on Big Data(2019). doi:10.1109/ TBDATA.2019.2916868

    2019

  42. [50]

    C. Lyu, J. Cheng, X. Luo, and Y. Shi. 2025. Genetic Algorithm-Based Two-Step Optimization for Precise Latent Factor Analysis.IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems(2025)

    2025

  43. [51]

    T. Lyu, J. Gao, L. Tian, et al . 2021. MDNN: A multimodal deep neural net- work for predicting drug-drug interaction events. InProceedings of the Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-21). 3536–3542. doi:10.24963/ijcai.2021/487

    2021 doi

  44. [52]

    Q. Ma, D. Wu, and X. Luo. 2025. A Review of Deep Learning-Based Power Load Forecasting Methods.International Journal of Network Dynamics and Intelligence KDD ’26, August 09–13, 2026, Jeju Island, Republic of Korea Di Wu et al. 4, 4 (2025), 100027

    2025

  45. [53]

    Tengfei Ma, Cao Xiao, Jiayu Zhou, and Fei Wang. 2018. Drug similarity in- tegration through attentive multi-view graph auto-encoders.arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.10850(2018)

    2018 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Milo et al

    R. Milo et al. 2002. Network Motifs: Simple Building Blocks of Complex Net- works.Science298, 5594 (2002), 824–827

    2002

  47. [55]

    A. K. Nyamabo, H. Yu, and J.-Y. Shi. 2021. SSI–DDI: Substructure–substructure interactions for drug–drug interaction prediction.Briefings in Bioinformatics 22, 6 (2021), bbab133. doi:10.1093/bib/bbab133

    2021 doi

  48. [56]

    Bethany Percha and Russ B Altman. 2013. Informatics confronts drug–drug interactions.Trends in pharmacological sciences34, 3 (2013), 178–184

    2013

  49. [57]

    J Peter and Silhouettes Rousseeuw. 1987. A graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis.J. Comput. Appl. Math20 (1987)

    1987

  50. [58]

    Y. Qiao, L. Hu, J. Zhang, P. Hu, and X. Luo. 2025. Identifying Novel Therapeutic Targets of Natural Compounds in Traditional Chinese Medicine Herbs with Hypergraph Representation Learning.Briefings in Bioinformatics26, 4 (2025), bbaf399

    2025

  51. [59]

    David Rogers and Mathew Hahn. 2010. Extended-connectivity fingerprints. Journal of chemical information and modeling50, 5 (2010), 742–754

    2010

  52. [60]

    Narjes Rohani and Changiz Eslahchi. 2019. Drug-drug interaction predicting by neural network using integrated similarity.Scientific reports9, 1 (2019), 13645

    2019

  53. [61]

    J. Y. Ryu, H. U. Kim, and S. Y. Lee. 2018. Deep learning improves prediction of drug–drug and drug–food interactions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences115, 18 (2018), E4304–E4311

    2018

  54. [62]

    X. Su, L. Hu, Z. You, P. Hu, and B. Zhao. 2022. Attention-based knowledge graph representation learning for predicting drug-drug interactions.Briefings in Bioinformatics23, 3 (2022), bbac140. doi:10.1093/bib/bbac140

    2022 doi

  55. [63]

    P. Tang, Y. Hou, and X. Luo. 2026. MPSANT: A Novel Multi-Projection Self- Attending Neural Tucker Factorization Model for High-Dimensional and Incom- plete Data Representation Learning.Information Fusion(2026), 104449

    2026

  56. [64]

    P. Tang, X. Luo, and J. Woodcock. 2025. Auto-Encoding Neural Tucker Factor- ization.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering(2025)

    2025

  57. [65]

    P. Tang, T. Ruan, H. Wu, and X. Luo. 2024. Temporal Pattern-Aware QoS Predic- tion by Biased Non-Negative Tucker Factorization of Tensors.Neurocomputing 582 (2024), 127447

    2024

  58. [66]

    Zhenchao Tang, Guanxing Chen, Hualin Yang, Weihe Zhong, and Calvin Yu- Chian Chen. 2023. DSIL-DDI: A domain-invariant substructure interaction learning for generalizable drug–drug interaction prediction.IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems35, 8 (2023), 10552–10560

    2023

  59. [67]

    Farhan Tanvir, Khaled Mohammed Saifuddin, Muhammad Ifte Khairul Islam, and Esra Akbas. 2023. Predicting drug-drug interactions using heterogeneous graph attention networks. InProceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology, and Hea...

    2023

  60. [68]

    N. P. Tatonetti, P. P. Ye, R. Daneshjou, and R. B. Altman. 2012. Data-driven prediction of drug effects and interactions.Science Translational Medicine4, 125 (Mar. 2012), 125

    2012

  61. [69]

    Santiago Vilar, Eugenio Uriarte, Lourdes Santana, Tal Lorberbaum, George Hripcsak, Carol Friedman, and Nicholas P Tatonetti. 2014. Similarity-based modeling in large-scale prediction of drug-drug interactions.Nature protocols9, 9 (2014), 2147–2163

    2014

  62. [70]

    J. Wang, W. Li, and X. Luo. 2024. A Distributed Adaptive Second-Order Latent Factor Analysis Model.IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica11, 11 (2024), 2343–2345

    2024

  63. [71]

    L. Wang, Y. Yuan, and X. Luo. 2026. Advanced High-Order Graph Convolutional Networks with Assorted Time-Frequency Transforms.IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica13, 2 (2026), 394–408

    2026

  64. [72]

    Q. Wang, H. Wu, and X. Luo. 2025. A Convolution Bias-Incorporated Non- negative Latent Factorization of Tensors Model for Accurate Representation Learning to Dynamic Directed Graphs.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems(2025)

    2025

  65. [73]

    Y. Wang, Z. Yang, and Q. Yao. 2024. Accurate and interpretable drug-drug inter- action prediction enabled by knowledge subgraph learning.Communications Medicine4, 1 (2024), 59. doi:10.1038/s43856-024-00486-y

    2024 doi

  66. [74]

    Ziyan Wang, Zhankun Xiong, Feng Huang, Xuan Liu, and Wen Zhang. 2024. ZeroDDI: a zero-shot drug-drug interaction event prediction method with se- mantic enhanced learning and dual-modal uniform alignment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.00891(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Larry C Wienkers and Timothy G Heath. 2005. Predicting in vivo drug inter- actions from in vitro drug discovery data.Nature reviews Drug discovery4, 10 (2005), 825–833

    2005

  68. [76]

    D. S. Wishart, Y. D. Feunang, A. C. Guo, E. J. Lo, A. Marcu, et al. 2018. DrugBank 5.0: A major update to the DrugBank database for 2018.Nucleic Acids Research 46, D1 (Jan. 2018), D1074–D1082

    2018

  69. [77]

    Di Wu, Qiang He, Xin Luo, Mingsheng Shang, Yi He, and Guoyin Wang. 2022. A Posterior-Neighborhood-Regularized Latent Factor Model for Highly Accurate Web Service QoS Prediction.IEEE Transactions on Services Computing15, 2 (2022), 793–805

    2022

  70. [78]

    Di Wu, Yi He, and Xin Luo. 2023. A Graph-Incorporated Latent Factor Analysis Model for High-Dimensional and Sparse Data.IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing11, 4 (2023), 907–917. doi:10.1109/TETC.2023.3292866

    2023 doi

  71. [79]

    Di Wu, Yi He, Xin Luo, and MengChu Zhou. 2022. A Latent Factor Analysis- Based Approach to Online Sparse Streaming Feature Selection.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems52, 11 (2022), 6744–6758. doi:10.1109/ TSMC.2021.3096065

    2022

  72. [80]

    Di Wu, Yuanpeng Hu, Kechen Liu, Jing Li, Xianmin Wang, Song Deng, Nenggan Zheng, and Xin Luo. 2025. An Outlier-Resilient Autoencoder for Representing High-Dimensional and Incomplete Data.IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence9, 2 (2025), 1379–1391. ...

    2025 doi

  73. [81]

    Di Wu, Long Jin, and Xin Luo. 2020. PMLF: Prediction-Sampling-Based Multilayer-Structured Latent Factor Analysis. InProceedings of the IEEE In- ternational Conference on Data Mining

    2020

  74. [82]

    Di Wu, Shihui Li, Yi He, Xin Luo, and Xinbo Gao. 2026. Non-Gradient Hash Factor Learning for High-Dimensional and Incomplete Data Representation Learning.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence48, 5 (2026), 5811–5826. doi:10.1109/TPAMI.2026.3653780

    2026 doi

  75. [83]

    Di Wu, Zechao Li, Zhikai Yu, Yi He, and Xin Luo. 2025. Robust Low-Rank Latent Feature Analysis for Spatiotemporal Signal Recovery.IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems36, 2 (2025), 2829–2842. doi:10.1109/ TNNLS.2023.3339786

    2025

  76. [84]

    Di Wu, Cheng Liang, Yi He, Yan Qiao, and Xin Luo. 2026. Multimetric Au- toencoder for Representing High-Dimensional and Incomplete Data.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems56, 3 (2026), 1533–1546. doi:10.1109/TSMC.2025.3646863

    2026 doi

  77. [85]

    Di Wu and Xin Luo. 2021. Robust Latent Factor Analysis for Precise Represen- tation of High-Dimensional and Sparse Data.IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica8, 4 (2021). doi:10.1109/JAS.2020.1003533

    2021 doi

  78. [86]

    Di Wu, Xin Luo, Yi He, and MengChu Zhou. 2024. A Prediction-Sampling- Based Multilayer-Structured Latent Factor Model for Accurate Representation to High-Dimensional and Sparse Data.IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems35, 3 (2024), 3845–3858. doi:10.1109/T...

    2024 doi

  79. [88]

    In Proceedings of the Pacific-Asia Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining

    A Data-Aware Latent Factor Model for Web Service QoS Prediction. In Proceedings of the Pacific-Asia Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining

  80. [90]

    InProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Big Data

    Online Feature Selection with Capricious Streaming Features: A General Framework. InProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Big Data

  81. [91]

    Di Wu, Xin Luo, Mingsheng Shang, Yi He, Guoyin Wang, and Xindong Wu

  82. [92]

    A Data-Characteristic-Aware Latent Factor Model for Web Service QoS Prediction.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering34, 6 (2022), 2525–2538

    2022

  83. [93]

    Di Wu, Xin Luo, Mingsheng Shang, Yi He, Guoyin Wang, and MengChu Zhou

  84. [94]

    doi:10.1109/TSMC.2019.2931393

    A Deep Latent Factor Model for High-Dimensional and Sparse Matrices in Recommender Systems.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems51, 7 (2021), 4285–4296. doi:10.1109/TSMC.2019.2931393

    2021 doi

  85. [95]

    Di Wu, Xin Luo, Guoyin Wang, Mingsheng Shang, Ye Yuan, and Huyong Yan

  86. [96]

    A Highly-Accurate Framework for Self-Labeled Semi-Supervised Classifi- cation in Industrial Applications.IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics14, 3 (2018), 909–920

    2018

  87. [97]

    Di Wu, Mingsheng Shang, Xin Luo, and Zidong Wang. 2022. An L1-and-L2- Norm-Oriented Latent Factor Model for Recommender Systems.IEEE Trans- actions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems33, 10 (2022), 5775–5788. doi:10.1109/TNNLS.2021.3071392

    2022 doi

  88. [98]

    Di Wu, Mingsheng Shang, Xin Luo, Ji Xu, Huyong Yan, Weihui Deng, and Guoyin Wang. 2018. Self-Training Semi-Supervised Classification Based on Density Peaks of Data.Neurocomputing275 (2018), 180–191

    2018

  89. [99]

    D. Wu, W. Sun, Y. He, Z. Chen, and X. Luo. 2024. MKG-FENN: A Multimodal Knowledge Graph Fused End-to-End Neural Network for Accurate Drug–Drug Interaction Prediction.Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence38, 9 (2024), 10216–10224. doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i9.28887

    2024 doi

  90. [100]

    Di Wu, Zetong Tang, Yi He, and Xin Luo. 2026. SchemaRAG: A Schema-aware Retrieval-Augmented Generation Framework for Text-to-SQL.Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data4, 1 (2026), 82:1–82:26. doi:10.1145/3786696

    2026 doi

  91. [101]

    Di Wu, Peng Zhang, Yi He, and Xin Luo. 2023. A Double-Space and Double- Norm Ensembled Latent Factor Model for Highly Accurate Web Service QoS Prediction.IEEE Transactions on Services Computing16, 2 (2023), 802–814. doi:10.1109/TSC.2022.3178543

    2023 doi

  92. [102]

    Di Wu, Peng Zhang, Yi He, and Xin Luo. 2024. MMLF: Multi-Metric Latent Feature Analysis for High-Dimensional and Incomplete Data.IEEE Transactions on Services Computing17, 2 (2024), 575–588. doi:10.1109/TSC.2023.3331570

    2024 doi

  93. [103]

    Di Wu, Shuai Zhong, Yi He, Xin Luo, and Xinbo Gao. 2026. Federated La- tent Factorization of Tensors for Privacy-Preserving Representation Learning to Large-scale Dynamic Weighted Directed Network.IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing(2026). doi:10.1109/TDSC.202...

    2026 doi

  94. [104]

    H. Wu, Q. Wang, X. Luo, and Z. Wang. 2025. Learning Accurate Representation to Nonstandard Tensors via a Mode-Aware Tucker Network.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering(2025)

    2025

  95. [105]

    M. Y. Wu, P. W. Hu, Z. H. You, J. Zhang, L. Hu, and X. Luo. 2025. Graph- Based Prediction of miRNA-Drug Associations with Multisource Information and Metapath Enhancement Matrices.IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics(2025)

    2025

  96. [106]

    Zhaoping Xiong, Dingyan Wang, Xiaohong Liu, Feisheng Zhong, Xiaozhe Wan, Xutong Li, Zhaojun Li, Xiaomin Luo, Kaixian Chen, Hualiang Jiang, et al. 2019. Pushing the boundaries of molecular representation for drug discovery with the graph attention mechanism.Journal of medicinal...

    2019

  97. [107]

    Ruiyang Xu, Di Wu, and Xin Luo. 2025. Recursion-and-Fuzziness Reinforced Online Sparse Streaming Feature Selection.IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 33, 8 (2025), 2574–2586. doi:10.1109/TFUZZ.2025.3569272

    2025 doi

  98. [108]

    Ruiyang Xu, Di Wu, Renfang Wang, and Xin Luo. 2025. A Highly-Accurate Three-Way Decision-Incorporated Online Sparse Streaming Features Selection Model.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems55, 6 (2025)

    2025

  99. [109]

    X. Xu, M. Lin, Z. Xu, and X. Luo. 2025. Attention-Mechanism-Based Neu- ral Latent-Factorization-of-Tensors Model.ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data19, 4 (2025), 1–27

    2025

  100. [110]

    F. Yang, D. Wu, Y. He, L. Tao, and X. Luo. 2024. End-to-End Graph Learn- ing Approach for Cognitive Diagnosis of Student Tutorial.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.00845(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  101. [111]

    Y. Yang, L. Hu, G. Li, D. Li, P. Hu, and X. Luo. 2025. FMvPCI: A Multiview Fusion Neural Network for Identifying Protein Complex via Fuzzy Clustering.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems(2025)

    2025

  102. [112]

    Y. Yang, L. Hu, G. Li, D. Li, P. Hu, and X. Luo. 2025. Link-Based Attributed Graph Clustering via Approximate Generative Bayesian Learning.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems(2025)

    2025

  103. [113]

    Qing Ye, Chang-Yu Hsieh, Ziyi Yang, Yu Kang, Jiming Chen, Dongsheng Cao, Shibo He, and Tingjun Hou. 2021. A unified drug–target interaction prediction framework based on knowledge graph and recommendation system.Nature communications12, 1 (2021), 6775

    2021

  104. [114]

    Y. Ye, J. Zhou, S. Li, C. Xiao, H. Ying, and H. Xiong. 2024. Hierarchical Cross- Level Graph Contrastive Learning for Drug-Drug Interaction Prediction. In Database Systems for Advanced Applications (DASFAA 2024). Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore, 232–242. doi:10.1007/978-9...

    2024 doi

  105. [115]

    C. Yu, D. Wu, J. Chen, M. Zhou, and X. Luo. 2025. Multi-Indicator Latent Factorization of Tensors for Spatio-Temporal Signal Recovery. InProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems

    2025

  106. [116]

    Chengjun Yu, Di Wu, Yi He, Jia Chen, and Xin Luo. 2026. Federated Latent Factor Learning for Privacy-Preserving Spatio-Temporal Signal Recovery. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference. 2905–2916. doi:10.1145/3774904.3792353

    2026 doi

  107. [117]

    Yue Yu, Kexin Huang, Chao Zhang, Lucas M Glass, Jimeng Sun, and Cao Xiao

  108. [118]

    SumGNN: multi-typed drug interaction prediction via efficient knowledge graph summarization.Bioinformatics37, 18 (2021), 2988–2995

    2021

  109. [119]

    Zhaoning Yu and Hongyang Gao. 2022. Molecular Representation Learning via Heterogeneous Motif Graph Neural Networks. InProceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 162). PMLR, 25581–25594

    2022

  110. [120]

    Y. Yuan, J. Li, and X. Luo. 2024. A Fuzzy PID-Incorporated Stochastic Gradi- ent Descent Algorithm for Fast and Accurate Latent Factor Analysis.IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems32, 7 (2024), 4049–4061

    2024

  111. [121]

    Ye Yuan, Xin Luo, Mingsheng Shang, and Di Wu. 2020. A Generalized and Fast- Converging Nonnegative Latent Factor Model for Predicting User Preferences in Recommender Systems. InProceedings of The Web Conference. 498–507

    2020

  112. [122]

    Y. Yuan, S. Wang, H. Zhou, L. Wang, and X. Luo. 2026. A Novel Approach to Temporal QoS Estimation via Extended Kalman Filter-Incorporated Latent Feature Analysis.IEEE Transactions on Services Computing(2026)

    2026

  113. [123]

    Y. Yuan, Y. Wang, and X. Luo. 2024. A Node-Collaboration-Informed Graph Con- volutional Network for Highly Accurate Representation to Undirected Weighted Graph.IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems36, 6 (2024), 11507–11519

    2024

  114. [124]

    Zhang, Y

    Y. Zhang, Y. Ling, W. Xian, Z. Ziheng, L. Zhenxi, Z. Yefeng Yao, and Quanming

  115. [125]

    doi:10.1038/s43588-023-00558-4

    Emerging drug interaction prediction enabled by a flow-based graph neural network with biomedical network.Nature Computational Science3, 12 (2023), 1023–1033. doi:10.1038/s43588-023-00558-4

    2023 doi

  116. [126]

    Zaixi Zhang, Qi Liu, Hao Wang, Chengqiang Lu, and Chee-Kong Lee. 2021. Motif-based graph self-supervised learning for molecular property prediction. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), Vol. 34. 15870– 15882

    2021

  117. [127]

    B. W. Zhao, X. R. Su, Y. Yang, D. X. Li, G. D. Li, P. W. Hu, X. Luo, and L. Hu. 2024. A Heterogeneous Information Network Learning Model with Neighborhood- Level Structural Representation for Predicting lncRNA-miRNA Interactions. Computational and Structural Biotechnology Jour...

    2024

  118. [128]

    B. W. Zhao, X. R. Su, Y. Yang, D. X. Li, G. D. Li, P. W. Hu, Z. H. You, X. Luo, and L. Hu. 2025. Regulation-Aware Graph Learning for Drug Repositioning over Heterogeneous Biological Network.Information Sciences686 (2025), 121360

    2025

  119. [129]

    Zhong, G

    Y. Zhong, G. Li, J. Yang, et al. 2024. Learning motif-based graphs for drug–drug interaction prediction via local–global self-attention.Nature Machine Intelligence 6 (2024), 1094–1105. doi:10.1038/s42256-024-00888-6

    2024 doi

  120. [130]

    Zhong, K

    Y. Zhong, K. Liu, S. Gao, and X. Luo. 2024. Alternating-Direction-Method of Multipliers-Based Adaptive Nonnegative Latent Factor Analysis.IEEE Transac- tions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence8, 5 (2024)

    2024

  121. [131]

    X. Zhu, L. Li, W. Liu, and X. Luo. 2024. Multi-Level Sequence Denoising with Cross-Signal Contrastive Learning for Sequential Recommendation.Neural Networks179 (2024), 106480

    2024

  122. [132]

    Marinka Zitnik, Monica Agrawal, and Jure Leskovec. 2018. Modeling polyphar- macy side effects with graph convolutional networks.Bioinformatics34, 13 (2018), i457–i466

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed July 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.