CAMDA: Contrastive and meta-path aware learning for miRNA-disease association prediction


Abstract

The identification of miRNA-disease associations (MDAs) is fundamental to elucidating complex disease pathophysiology. Computational methods for MDA prediction often face challenges in integrating diverse semantic relationships and learning robust representations from sparse data. To address these issues, we propose CAMDA, a framework that learns node representations from multiple meta-path-defined graph views. CAMDA utilizes a tri-perspective graph convolutional network architecture to process these views through three parallel pathways, generating specific, consensus, and topology-aware embeddings. To optimize these representations, the framework employs a dual-objective contrastive learning mechanism based on mutual information maximization. This mechanism operates at both the nodal level, to preserve local meta-path-specific information, and at the global level, to capture consistent patterns across the network. The final representations are generated by concatenating the embeddings from all three perspectives for downstream prediction tasks. Experiments on the HMDD v3.2 dataset demonstrate that CAMDA achieves an average AUC of 95.67% under five-fold cross-validation. Case studies on three gastrointestinal cancers (esophageal, gastric, and colorectal neoplasms) confirm the model's ability to identify biologically relevant associations, with validation in established databases supporting the predicted novel miRNA-disease associations.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].