Dataset Information

Investigating ADR mechanisms with Explainable AI: a feasibility study with knowledge graph mining.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are statistically characterized within randomized clinical trials and postmarketing pharmacovigilance, but their molecular mechanism remains unknown in most cases. This is true even for hepatic or skin toxicities, which are classically monitored during drug design. Aside from clinical trials, many elements of knowledge about drug ingredients are available in open-access knowledge graphs, such as their properties, interactions, or involvements in pathways. In addition, drug classifications that label drugs as either causative or not for several ADRs, have been established.

Methods

We propose in this paper to mine knowledge graphs for identifying biomolecular features that may enable automatically reproducing expert classifications that distinguish drugs causative or not for a given type of ADR. In an Explainable AI perspective, we explore simple classification techniques such as Decision Trees and Classification Rules because they provide human-readable models, which explain the classification itself, but may also provide elements of explanation for molecular mechanisms behind ADRs. In summary, (1) we mine a knowledge graph for features; (2) we train classifiers at distinguishing, on the basis of extracted features, drugs associated or not with two commonly monitored ADRs: drug-induced liver injuries (DILI) and severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCAR); (3) we isolate features that are both efficient in reproducing expert classifications and interpretable by experts (i.e., Gene Ontology terms, drug targets, or pathway names); and (4) we manually evaluate in a mini-study how they may be explanatory.

Results

Extracted features reproduce with a good fidelity classifications of drugs causative or not for DILI and SCAR (Accuracy = 0.74 and 0.81, respectively). Experts fully agreed that 73% and 38% of the most discriminative features are possibly explanatory for DILI and SCAR, respectively; and partially agreed (2/3) for 90% and 77% of them.

Conclusion

Knowledge graphs provide sufficiently diverse features to enable simple and explainable models to distinguish between drugs that are causative or not for ADRs. In addition to explaining classifications, most discriminative features appear to be good candidates for investigating ADR mechanisms further.

SUBMITTER: Bresso E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8157660 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionGraph-based representations are becoming more common in the medical domain, where each node defines a patient, and the edges signify associations between patients, relating individuals with disease and symptoms in a node classification task. In this study, a Graph Convolutional Networks (GCN) model was utilized to capture differences in neurocognitive, genetic, and brain atrophy patterns that can predict cognitive status, ranging from Normal Cognition (NC) to Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's Disease (AD), on the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) database. Elucidating model predictions is vital in medical applications to promote clinical adoption and establish physician trust. Therefore, we introduce a decomposition-based explanation method for individual patient classification.MethodsOur method involves analyzing the output variations resulting from decomposing input values, which allows us to determine the degree of impact on the prediction. Through this process, we gain insight into how each feature from various modalities, both at the individual and group levels, contributes to the diagnostic result. Given that graph data contains critical information in edges, we studied relational data by silencing all the edges of a particular class, thereby obtaining explanations at the neighborhood level.ResultsOur functional evaluation showed that the explanations remain stable with minor changes in input values, specifically for edge weights exceeding 0.80. Additionally, our comparative analysis against SHAP values yielded comparable results with significantly reduced computational time. To further validate the model's explanations, we conducted a survey study with 11 domain experts. The majority (71%) of the responses confirmed the correctness of the explanations, with a rating of above six on a 10-point scale for the understandability of the explanations.DiscussionStrategies to overcome perceived limitations, such as the GCN's overreliance on demographic information, were discussed to facilitate future adoption into clinical practice and gain clinicians' trust as a diagnostic decision support system.