Cited by 11Machine Learning in HealthcareRecommender Systems and TechniquesComputational Drug Discovery Methods

KELLM: Knowledge-enhanced label-wise large language model for safe and interpretable drug recommendation

Open access
Xu, Tianhan, Li, Bin·2025·Electronics

Abstract

The proliferation of electronic health records (EHRs) and advances in deep learning have enabled personalized drug combination recommendations. However, traditional deep learning models often lack the contextual understanding and medical knowledge integration necessary for accurate predictions. While large language model (LLM)-based approaches address some of these challenges, they still fall short in incorporating critical medical knowledge, addressing comprehensive safety constraints such as multi-disease drug contraindications (MDCs), and providing sufficient interpretability of the causal mechanisms behind their outputs. To overcome these limitations, we propose KELLM, a knowledge-enhanced LLM framework for drug recommendations. By linking medical entities in EHRs to an external medical knowledge graph, inputs are enriched with causal chains, enhancing both prediction accuracy and interpretability. Additionally, we introduce a fine-tuned label-wise LLaMA model designed for multi-label classification, which incorporates safety considerations such as drug-drug interactions (DDIs) and MDCs to ensure clinically accurate and safe recommendations. Experimental results show that KELLM achieves state-of-the-art performance in effectiveness and safety metrics, while also providing evidence-based insights through causal chains that clarify its reasoning process. This establishes a new benchmark for trustworthy, interpretable drug combination recommendations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/electronics14010154

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Fifteen studies used only open-source models.

    “fifteen used only open-source models [67,72,73,96,98,113,129]”
  • Structured decoding approaches enforce interpretable reasoning pathways by construction, rather than hoping that prompted models will faithfully externalize their computations.

    “Structured decoding approaches [65,96,101,115,122] enforce interpretable reasoning pathways by construction, rather than hoping that prompted models will faithfully externalize their computations.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Xu, T., & Li, B.
Affiliations
Yangzhou University (CN)
Corresponding author
Li, Bin
Venue
Electronics
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2025-01-02
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
154
ISSN
2079-9292 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4405994470
Cited by
11
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5
FWCI
4.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Electronics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China (61972335)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
Keywords
drug-drug interactions, medical knowledge graph, causal chains, interpretability, multi-label classification, electronic health records, drug safety

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