ArticleBMC biology2025
Negative sampling strategies impact the prediction of scale-free biomolecular network interactions with machine learning.
Article in BMC biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- DDTRN: predicting bacterial transcriptional regulatory networks based on gene sequences using dual descriptor.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- MFCN-DDI: Capsule network based on multimodal feature for multitype drug-drug interaction prediction.Quantitative biology (Beijing, China) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUnderstanding protein-molecular interaction is crucial for unraveling the mechanisms underlying diverse biological processes. Machine learning (ML) techniques have been extensively employed in predicting these interactions and have garnered substantial research focus. Previous studies have predominantly centered on improving model performance through novel and efficient ML approaches, often resulting in overoptimistic predictive estimates. However, these advancements frequently neglect the inherent biases stemming from network properties, particularly in biological contexts.
resultsIn this study, we examined the biases inherent in ML models during the learning and prediction of protein-molecular interactions, particularly those arising from the scale-free property of biological networks-a characteristic where in a few nodes have many connections while most have very few. Our comprehensive analysis across diverse tasks, datasets, and ML methods provides compelling evidence of these biases. We discovered that the training and evaluation of ML models are profoundly influenced by network topology, potentially distorting model performance assessments. To mitigate this issue, we propose the degree distribution balanced (DDB) sampling strategy, a straightforward yet potent approach that alleviates biases stemming from network properties. This method further underscores the limitations of certain ML models in learning protein-molecular interactions solely from intrinsic molecular features.
conclusionsOur findings present a novel perspective for assessing the performance of ML models in inferring protein-molecular interactions with greater fairness. By addressing biases introduced by network properties, the DDB sampling approach provides a more balanced and precise assessment of model capabilities. These insights hold the potential to bolster the reliability of ML models in bioinformatics, fostering a more stringent evaluation framework for predicting protein-molecular interactions.
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.