ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
RAG-GNN: retrieval-augmented graph neural networks for protein interaction network embeddings.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We present RAG-GNN, an end-to-end trainable framework that augments a graph neural network (GNN) encoder for protein interaction networks with a jointly optimized dense retrieval module over a TF-IDF-indexed document corpus, a gated fusion mechanism, and contrastive alignment between node and document representations. The study is positioned as a controlled methodological investigation of whether retrieval augmentation provides measurable benefit beyond a matched GNN-only ablation, rather than as a precision-medicine or therapeutic-target discovery tool. On a cancer signaling case study (379 proteins, 3,498 interactions, 14 pathway categories), RAG-GNN improves functional clustering silhouette from -0.237 ± 0.065 (GNN-only) to -0.144 ± 0.066 (+0.093 ± 0.022 across 10 seeds; ARI +0.021 ± 0.015), while the learned retrieval projection attains mean precision at 10 = 0.242, a 152% relative improvement over a random baseline (0.096). Counterfactual experiments confirm that random and absent retrieval contexts degrade performance, but a shuffled-document control (real documents reassigned to incorrect proteins) performs comparably to proper retrieval, indicating that the gain reflects general biological signal in the aggregate TF-IDF corpus rather than node-specific semantic matching. A heuristic information decomposition with bootstrap confidence intervals shows that topology and retrieval encode overwhelmingly shared information (95.6%), with retrieval contributing primarily by reorganizing this shared signal. Benchmarking against eight embedding methods reveals task-specific complementarity: Topology-focused methods are stronger for link prediction, while retrieval augmentation improves functional clustering within the controlled ablation. A DDR1 subnetwork analysis is reported as confirmatory recovery of biology already present in the input corpus, not as prospective discovery.
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.