ArticleScientific reports2024
THGB: predicting ligand-receptor interactions by combining tree boosting and histogram-based gradient boosting.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ligand-receptor interaction (LRI) prediction has great significance in biological and medical research and facilitates to infer and analyze cell-to-cell communication. However, wet experiments for new LRI discovery are costly and time-consuming. Here, we propose a computational model called THGB to uncover new LRIs. THGB first extracts feature information of Ligand-Receptor (LR) pairs using iFeature. Next, it adopts a tree boosting model to obtain representative LR features. Finally, it devises the histogram-based gradient boosting model to capture high-quality LRIs. To assess the THGB performance, we compared it with three new LRI prediction models (i.e., CellEnBoost, CellGiQ, and CellComNet) and one classical protein-protein interaction inference model PIPR. The results demonstrated that THGB achieved the best overall predictions in terms of six evaluation indictors (i.e., precision, recall, accuracy, F1-score, AUC, and AUPR). To measure the effect of LR feature selection on the prediction, THGB was compared with four feature selection methods (i.e., PCA, NMF, LLE, and TSVD). The results showed that the tree boosting model was more appropriate to select representative LR features and improve LRI prediction. We also conducted ablation study and found that THGB with feature selection outperformed THGB without feature selection. We hope that THGB is a useful tool to find new LRIs and further infer cell-to-cell communication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.