Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

DDI relation types and explanations.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 1.

Overall system architecture.

We implemented both the one-stage and the two-stage method. (a) Data generation part. (b) One-stage method. Five-class type classifier for the one-stage method. (c) Two-stage method. The DDI detection classifier distinguishes positive DDI instances from negative instances. The DDI type classifier receives the predicted positive instances from the detection classifier as a testing set.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

The architecture of our recursive neural network model.

Our model is a variation of the binary tree-LSTM model. (1) The words in a sentence. The names of drug targets are underlined. (2) Vector representation of a word through the word embedding lookup process. (3) Subtree containment feature represents the importance of a node. (4) Position feature vector representing the relative distance of two target drugs from the current word position. (5) An example of the position feature vector. The current word is “accelerated.” (6) The size of the concatenated vector input x0 of our model is 10 (size of the subtree containment feature; (3) in the figure) + 20 (size of the position feature; (4) in the figure) + 200 (size of the word embedding; (2) in the figure).

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 2.

Vector representation according to the distance between one of the target drugs and a current word.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Search process to find the best hyperparameters used for our model.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

The statistics of the DDIExtraction Challenge’13 corpus after preprocessing.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Comparison between our proposed model and existing models.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

Changes in our model’s performance in DDI detection by removing several features of our model.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Table 7.

The statistics from the PK DDI corpus after preprocessing.

More »

Table 7 Expand

Table 8.

Comparison of in vivo PK DDI results of our model and those of existing models.

More »

Table 8 Expand

Table 9.

Comparison of in vitro PK DDI results of our model and those existing models.

More »

Table 9 Expand

Table 10.

Performance changes of our model on the PK DDI in vivo dataset by removing features.

More »

Table 10 Expand

Table 11.

Examples of three common types of error cases.

More »

Table 11 Expand