AGATHA: Automatic Graph Mining And Transformer based Hypothesis Generation Approach
Open accessAbstract
Medical research is risky and expensive. Drug discovery requires researchers to efficiently winnow thousands of potential targets to a small candidate set. However, scientists spend significant time and money long before seeing the intermediate results that ultimately determine this smaller set. Hypothesis generation systems address this challenge by mining the wealth of publicly available scientific information to predict plausible research directions. We present AGATHA, a deep-learning hypothesis generation system that learns a data-driven ranking criteria to recommend new biomedical connections. We massively validate our system with a temporal holdout wherein we predict connections first introduced after 2015 using data published beforehand. We additionally explore biomedical sub-domains, and demonstrate AGATHA's predictive capacity across the twenty most popular relationship types. Furthermore, we perform an ablation study to examine the aspects of our semantic network that most contribute to recommendation quality. Overall, AGATHA achieves best-in-class recommendation quality when compared to other hypothesis generation systems built to predict across all available biomedical literature. Reproducibility: All code, experimental data, and pre-trained models are available online: sybrandt.com/2020/agatha.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cites
Product Quantization for Nearest Neighbor Search
Jégou, H., Douze, M., & Schmid, C. (2011) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2010.57 · Cited by 2,956 · cited 1× · see citing works
“First, we collect a one-percent sample of all embeddings on a single machine, wherein we perform product quantization (PQ) [18].”
MethodIBM Watson: How Cognitive Computing Can Be Applied to Big Data Challenges in Life Sciences Research
Chen, Y., Elenee Argentinis, J., & Weber, G. (2016) · Clinical Therapeutics · doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2015.12.001 · Cited by 466 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Artificial intelligence for literature reviews: opportunities and challenges
Bolaños, F., Salatino, A., Osborne, F., & Motta, E. (2024) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-024-10902-3 · Cited by 246 · see citing works
Baek, J., Jauhar, S. K., Cucerzan, S., & Hwang, S. J. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.naacl-long.342 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
- Authors
- Sybrandt, J., Tyagin, I., Shtutman, M., & Safro, I.
- Affiliations
- Clemson University (US)
- University of South Carolina (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2020-10-19
- Pages
- 2757-2764
- ISSN
- 2155-0751 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3093787311
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 6.50
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- NSF (1633608)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
- Keywords
- hypothesis generation, biomedical text mining, drug target prioritization, deep learning, semantic networks, Agatha
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