SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Identification of Drug-Disease Associations Using a Random Walk with Restart Method and Supervised Learning.

Comput Math Methods Med · 2022-10-10

DOI: 10.1155/2022/7035634PMID: 36262874

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Drug-disease correlations play an important role in revealing the mechanism of disease, finding new indications of available drugs, or drug repositioning. A variety of computational approaches were proposed to find drug-disease correlations and achieve good performances. However, these methods used a variety of network information, but integrated networks were rarely used. In addition, the role of known drug-disease association data has not been fully played. In this work, we designed a combination algorithm of random walk and supervised learning to find the drug-disease correlations. We used an integrated network to update the model and selected a gene set as the start of random walk based on the known drug-disease correlations data. The experimental results show that the proposed method can effectively find the correlation between drugs and diseases, and the prediction accuracy is 82.7%. We found that there are 8 pairs of drug-disease relationships that have not yet been reported, and 5 of them have pharmacodynamic effects on Parkinson's disease. We also found that a key linkage between Parkinson's disease and phenylhexol, a drug for the treatment of Parkinson's disease α-synuclein and tau protein, provides a useful exploration for the effectiveness of the treatment of Parkinson's disease.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.