DrugAgent: Reliable Multi-Agent Integration of Conflicting Biomedical Evidence for Drug-Target Interaction Assessment
Open accessAbstract
Workflows in drug-target interaction (DTI) assessment require integrating heterogeneous data from predictive models, curated resources, and observations from experimental literature. This evidence can be incomplete or conflicting. DrugAgent is a large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent system focused on DTI evidence integration that integrates outputs from machine learning, knowledge graph, and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) agents. DrugAgent converts agent outputs into interpretable representations, then summarizes conflict across the evidence. We evaluated DrugAgent on kinase screening data of 900 pairs spanning 178 kinases and 42 inhibitors, and an androgen receptor antagonist screening benchmark. On the kinase dataset, LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation indicated outputs were faithful to input evidence in 98.8% of cases. Biological plausibility of returned summarization was high (scores 3-4 out of 5) across ground-truth classes: 79% of Weak activity labels cases (81% for Moderate/77% Strong); Strong cases received higher scores than Weak/Moderate. Label stability showed 98% agreement across runs. Results on the antagonist benchmark were consistent with the kinase dataset. Retrieved literature provided the greatest benefit when direct drug-target evidence was available, highlighting the importance of evidence availability for RAG-based integration. DrugAgent provides heterogeneous evidence-grounded DTI assessment, complementing standalone DTI prediction. We provide strategies to model agreement, conflict, and uncertainty in biomedical evidence integration. Code: https://github.com/sciluna/DrugAgent.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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?
Retrieval-augmented generation was frequently incorporated to ground reasoning in external evidence, particularly in CBM-RAG, DrugAgent, DSM5AgentFlow, CASSIA, and BRAD.
“Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) was frequently incorporated to ground reasoning in external evidence, particularly in systems aiming to mitigate hallucinations or enhance reliability, such as CBM-RAG, DrugAgent, DSM5AgentFlow, CASSIA, and BRAD [19,20,24,25,26].”
From Explainable Agentic Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: A Scoping Review (2026) · cites this paper as [19]
The Discussion says a RAG agent “could be added,” presenting it as a possible extension rather than part of DrugAgent. DrugAgent does use search results and knowledge graphs as external evidence for its reasoning, but the cited paper does not describe RAG as incorporated into the system. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredOther included studies incorporated retrospective validation using benchmark or real-world datasets (ADAM-1, DrugAgent, EMAI, and CASSIA).
“In contrast, others incorporated retrospective validation using benchmark or real-world datasets (e.g., ADAM-1, DrugAgent, EMAI, and CASSIA) [19,22,23,26].”
From Explainable Agentic Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: A Scoping Review (2026) · cites this paper as [19]
Most systems incorporated example-based grounding, operationalized as explicit links to retrieved clinical guidelines, biomedical literature, databases, ontologies, or knowledge graph paths.
“In addition, most systems incorporated example-based grounding, operationalized as explicit links to retrieved clinical guidelines, biomedical literature, databases, ontologies, or knowledge graph path [19,25,26].”
From Explainable Agentic Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: A Scoping Review (2026) · cites this paper as [19]
Primary clinical and biomedical tasks addressed included CDSSs, question answering, mental health screening and assessment, diagnostic and report generation or summarization, drug-target interaction prediction, biomarker discovery, and single-cell annotation.
“The primary clinical and biomedical tasks addressed included clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) [20,21,22,24,27], question answering (QA) [27], mental health screening and assessment [24], diagnostic and report generation or summarization [20,22,23], drug–target interaction prediction [19], biomarker discovery [25], and single-cell annotation [26].”
From Explainable Agentic Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: A Scoping Review (2026) · cites this paper as [19]
Systems focused on CDSSs, screening, and biomedical reasoning primarily relied on a reasoning-plus-evidence paradigm, combining textual rationales with explicit grounding in retrieved sources.
“Systems focused on CDSSs, screening, and biomedical reasoning (e.g., ENTAgents, DrugAgent, DSM5AgentFlow, BRAD, and CASSIA) primarily relied on a “reasoning + evidence” paradigm, combining textual rationales with explicit grounding in retrieved sources [19,24,25,26,27].”
From Explainable Agentic Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: A Scoping Review (2026) · cites this paper as [19]
Nine studies met all inclusion criteria and were included in the final synthesis.
“Nine studies met the inclusion criteria.”
From Explainable Agentic Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: A Scoping Review (2026) · cites this paper as [19]
Section 4.1 describes filtering a kinase–compound dataset to 201 proteins and 75 drugs, not selecting studies for a synthesis. A search of our copy for nine studies, inclusion criteria, and a final synthesis found no passage addressing the claim; the available passages have no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
Cited by 5
Research works printed but not linked: 23
- Hengame Abbasi Mesrabadi, Karim Faez, and Jamshid Pirgazi. Drug-target interaction prediction based on protein features, using wrapper feature selection. Scientific Reports, 13(1):3594, 2023.
- Elif Akata, Lion Schulz, Julian Coda-Forno, Seong Joon Oh, Matthias Bethge, and Eric Schulz. Playing repeated games with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16867, 2023. · arXiv
- Theonie Anastassiadis, Sean W Deacon, Karthik Devarajan, Haiching Ma, and Jeffrey R Peterson. Comprehensive assay of kinase catalytic activity reveals features of kinase inhibitor selectivity. Nature biotechnology, 29(11):1039-1045, 2011.
- Fabio Bellifemine, Federico Bergenti, Giovanni Caire, and Agostino Poggi. Jade-a java agent development framework. Multi-agent programming: Languages, platforms and applications, pp. 125-147, 2005.
- Yi-Tan Chang, Eric P Hoffman, Guoqiang Yu, David M Herrington, Robert Clarke, Chiung-Ting Wu, Lulu Chen, and Yue Wang. Integrated identification of disease specific pathways using multi-omics data. bioRxiv, pp. 666065, 2019.
- Jiaqi Chen, Yuxian Jiang, Jiachen Lu, and Li Zhang. S-agents: self-organizing agents in open-ended environment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.04578, 2024a. · arXiv
- Jintai Chen, Yaojun Hu, Yue Wang, Yingzhou Lu, Xu Cao, Miao Lin, Hongxia Xu, Jian Wu, Cao Xiao, Jimeng Sun, et al. Trialbench: Multi-modal artificial intelligence-ready clinical trial datasets. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.00631, 2024b. · arXiv
- Lulu Chen, Chiung-Ting Wu, Robert Clarke, Guoqiang Yu, Jennifer E Van Eyk, David M Herrington, and Yue Wang. Data-driven detection of subtype-specific differentially expressed genes. Scientific reports, 11(1):332, 2021.
- Yilun Du, Shuang Li, Antonio Torralba, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Igor Mordatch. Improving factual- ity and reasoning in language models through multiagent debate. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14325, 2023. · arXiv
- Justin Gilmer, Samuel S Schoenholz, Patrick F Riley, Oriol Vinyals, and George E Dahl. Neural message passing for quantum chemistry. In International conference on machine learning, pp. 1263-1272. PMLR, 2017.
- Kexin Huang, Tianfan Fu, Lucas M Glass, Marinka Zitnik, Cao Xiao, and Jimeng Sun. DeepPurpose: a deep learning library for drug-target interaction prediction. Bioinformatics, 36(22-23):5545- 5547, 2020.
- Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, et al. Retrieval-augmented genera- tion for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 9459-9474, 2020.
- Yingzhou Lu, Yaojun Hu, and Chenhao Li. Drugclip: Contrastive drug-disease interaction for drug repurposing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.02265, 2024. · arXiv
- Mikayel Samvelyan, Tabish Rashid, Christian Schroeder De Witt, Gregory Farquhar, Nantas Nardelli, Tim GJ Rudner, Chia-Man Hung, Philip HS Torr, Jakob Foerster, and Shimon Whiteson. The starcraft multi-agent challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.04043, 2019. · arXiv
- Dong Shu, Tianle Chen, Mingyu Jin, Yiting Zhang, Mengnan Du, and Yongfeng Zhang. Knowledge graph large language model (kg-llm) for link prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07311, 2024. · arXiv
- Reid G Smith. The contract net protocol: High-level communication and control in a distributed problem solver. IEEE Transactions on computers, 29(12):1104-1113, 1980.
- Sofia Eleni Spatharioti, David M Rothschild, Daniel G Goldstein, and Jake M Hofman. Comparing traditional and llm-based search for consumer choice: A randomized experiment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.03744, 2023. · arXiv
- Xiangru Tang, Anni Zou, Zhuosheng Zhang, Ziming Li, Yilun Zhao, Xingyao Zhang, Arman Cohan, and Mark Gerstein. Medagents: Large language models as collaborators for zero-shot medical reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.10537, 2023. · arXiv
- Jessica Vamathevan, Dominic Clark, Paul Czodrowski, Ian Dunham, Edgardo Ferran, George Lee, Bin Li, Anant Madabhushi, Parantu Shah, Michaela Spitzer, et al. Applications of machine learning in drug discovery and development. Nature reviews Drug discovery, 18(6):463-477, 2019.
- Yue Wang, Yingzhou Lu, Yinlong Xu, Zihan Ma, Hongxia Xu, Bang Du, Honghao Gao, and Jian Wu. Twin-gpt: Digital twins for clinical trials via large language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.01273, 2024. · arXiv
- Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, et al. Emergent abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682, 2022a. · arXiv
- Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824-24837, 2022b.
- Michael Wooldridge and Nicholas R Jennings. Intelligent agents: Theory and practice. The knowledge engineering review, 10(2):115-152, 1995. ["Mubritinib", "MAPKAPK5", 3.902255048160441e-05, "This agent used an ML model"]] ↩→ KG Agent: [["Vandetanib", "MARK2", 0.7213, "3-hop path: Vandetanib->LYN->Benzocaine->MARK2"], ↩→ ["Mubritinib", "MAPKAPK5", 0.7213, "3-hop path: Mubritinib->EGFR->Bisphenol a->MAPKAPK5"]] ↩→ Search Agent: [["Vandetanib", "MARK2", 0.3, "Kinase inhibitor targeting Aurora kinases. No strong direct evidence with MARK2"], ↩→ ["Mubritinib", "MAPKAPK5", 0.3, "No direct relationship. Mubritinib affects mitochondrial function"]] ↩→ Reasoning Agent Output (Shorten Version): Thought: Analyze ML, KG, and Literature Search evidence for Vandetanib- MARK2 interaction. Action: ANALYZE_EVIDENCE Observation: ML = 7.26e-6, KG = 0.7213, Search = 0.3 Action: EVALUATE_MECHANISMS
- Authors
- Inoue, Y., Song, T., Wang, X., Kuang, R., Fu, T., & Luna, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Minnesota (US)
- United States National Library of Medicine (US)
- National Cancer Institute (US)
- ORCID
- Inoue, Yoshitaka
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2408.13378
- OpenAlex
- W4403703650
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
- Keywords
- drug-target interaction prediction, multi-agent systems, large language models, retrieval-augmented generation, knowledge graphs, kinase inhibitors, androgen receptor antagonists, LLM-as-a-judge
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
