Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 386

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 72 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Graph embedding on biomedical networks: methods, applications and evaluations

Open access
Yue, Xiang, Wang, Zhen, Huang, Jingong, Parthasarathy, Srinivasan, Moosavinasab, Soheil, Huang, Yungui, Lin, Simon M, Zhang, Wen, Zhang, Ping, Sun, Huan·2020·Bioinformatics

Abstract

Motivation: Graph embedding learning that aims to automatically learn low-dimensional node representations, has drawn increasing attention in recent years. To date, most recent graph embedding methods are evaluated on social and information networks and are not comprehensively studied on biomedical networks under systematic experiments and analyses. On the other hand, for a variety of biomedical network analysis tasks, traditional techniques such as matrix factorization (which can be seen as a type of graph embedding methods) have shown promising results, and hence there is a need to systematically evaluate the more recent graph embedding methods (e.g. random walk-based and neural network-based) in terms of their usability and potential to further the state-of-the-art. Results: We select 11 representative graph embedding methods and conduct a systematic comparison on 3 important biomedical link prediction tasks: drug-disease association (DDA) prediction, drug–drug interaction (DDI) prediction, protein–protein interaction (PPI) prediction; and 2 node classification tasks: medical term semantic type classification, protein function prediction. Our experimental results demonstrate that the recent graph embedding methods achieve promising results and deserve more attention in the future biomedical graph analysis. Compared with three state-of-the-art methods for DDAs, DDIs and protein function predictions, the recent graph embedding methods achieve competitive performance without using any biological features and the learned embeddings can be treated as complementary representations for the biological features. By summarizing the experimental results, we provide general guidelines for properly selecting graph embedding methods and setting their hyper-parameters for different biomedical tasks. Availability and implementation: As part of our contributions in the paper, we develop an easy-to-use Python package with detailed instructions, BioNEV, available at: https://github.com/xiangyue9607/BioNEV, including all source code and datasets, to facilitate studying various graph embedding methods on biomedical tasks. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz718

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 72 references

Cited by

See all 386

Metadata

Authors
Yue, X., Wang, Z., Huang, J., Parthasarathy, S., Moosavinasab, S., Huang, Y., Lin, S. M., Zhang, W., Zhang, P., & Sun, H.
Venue
Bioinformatics
Published
2019-10-04
Volume
36
Issue
4
Pages
1241-1251
ISSN
  • 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
  • 1367-4811
OpenAlex
W2977707586
Cited by
386
References
72
FWCI
23.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Graph embedding on biomedical networks: methods, applications and evaluations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/bioinformatics/btz718
The paper
Yue, X., Wang, Z., Huang, J., Parthasarathy, S., Moosavinasab, S., Huang, Y., Lin, S. M., Zhang, W., Zhang, P., & Sun, H. (2020). Graph embedding on biomedical networks: methods, applications and evaluations. Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btz718

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.