Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 45 references

TF-DWGNet: A Directed Weighted Graph Neural Network with Tensor Fusion for Multi-Omics Cancer Subtype Classification

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read TF-DWGNet claims that tree-ensemble split patterns, turned into directed weighted graphs and fused by low-rank tensor products, improve cancer subtype classification and yield built-in biomarker rankings.

desk verdict A competent but unverified combination of supervised tree-based graphs and tensor fusion; the label-leakage ambiguity around graph construction needs resolving before trusting the reported margins. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.16301 v2 pith:H4HZ3LSY submitted 2025-09-19 q-bio.QM cs.LG

Tiantian Yang , Zhiqian Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.QMcs.LG
keywords graphneuralnetworksmulti-omicsintegrationdirectedweightedgraphscancersubtypeclassificationtensorfusionlow-rankdecompositionmodelinterpretabilitytree-basedfeatureselection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

TF-DWGNet claims that cancer subtype classification from multi-omics data improves when each omics modality is represented by a directed, weighted graph learned from supervised tree-ensemble split patterns, and when the three learned embeddings are fused through a low-rank tensor product that explicitly models single-modality, pairwise, and three-way interactions. Tested on breast, endometrial, and kidney cancer cohorts under 20 train-validation-test splits, the model is reported to beat all compared baselines on accuracy, weighted F1, and macro F1, with the largest margins on the five-class breast-cancer task. Because the graph edges and the fusion weights come from the trained model itself, the same modelling routine yields per-feature importance ranks and per-modality contribution scores, which the authors present as a built-in interpretability mechanism rather than a post hoc analysis. The underlying bet is that directionality and interaction strength—information that undirected similarity graphs and plain concatenation discard—are what carry the improvement.

What carries the argument

The central object is the directed weighted graph built from tree-ensemble co-splits. Each tree is treated as a directed graph where an edge a→b means feature a appears before feature b on a splitting path, and edge weights count how often that directional co-split occurs across all trees; this graph provides both the topology and the connection strengths used by the graph-embedded layer. The other load-bearing piece is the tensor fusion module: augmenting each unimodal representation with a row of ones and taking the third-order outer product yields all unimodal, bimodal, and trimodal interaction terms, while CP decomposition approximates the tensor as a sum of R rank-one factors, reducing

What would settle it

Inspect the split pipeline: if the tree-ensemble graphs are fit on all samples before the train-validation-test split, rerun the entire evaluation with graph construction and feature selection confined to each training fold. If accuracy and F1 gaps to the baselines collapse, the reported advantage is label leakage; if they persist, the central claim is supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, TF-DWGNet establishes that supervised graph construction and higher-order tensor fusion can be combined into a single architecture that is both predictive and interpretable. For each omics matrix, a tree-boosting ensemble is trained on the classification task; each tree is read as a directed graph in which an edge a→b records that feature a was split before feature b along a path, and the aggregate edge weight is the frequency of that directional co-split across all trees. The resulting sparse graph simultaneously selects features and encodes directional dependencies. A graph-embedded neural network per modality embeds the reduced feature matrix together with the normalized

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise, which the paper does not explicitly state, is that the supervised tree-ensemble graph construction and feature selection are fitted on the training portion of each of the 20 splits; if the graphs are built on the full dataset, test labels could leak through the edges and inflate the reported improvements.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Multi-omics classifiers can learn task-specific graphs without external pathway databases; the same split-pattern construction can be reused on any new cancer cohort or omics combination.
  • Explicit unimodal, bimodal, and trimodal terms make it possible to see which omics pair or triple carries classification signal, not just which single omics is most informative.
  • Because feature and modality importance come from the trained connection weights, biomarker discovery and model interpretation do not require additional retraining or ablation runs.
  • The rank-R CP decomposition keeps higher-order interaction modeling tractable at thousands of input features, so the approach scales beyond the three-omics setting used here.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If tree-split edge direction encodes regulatory order, the learned directed edges could be tested against known transcription-factor/target or methylation-expression relations; a positive match would turn the graph from a predictive device into a hypothesis generator.
  • The method could be applied to single-cell or spatial omics where regulatory direction is less well charted; edge frequencies might serve as a proxy for temporal or causal ordering.
  • Because the kidney-cancer gains are small, the method's advantage may be concentrated on harder, more imbalanced tasks; a deliberate stress test on a low-separation cohort would clarify where the margin actually comes from.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. TF-DWGNet proposes a multi-omics cancer-subtype classifier that combines supervised, tree-based directed weighted graph construction (via XGBoost) with low-rank CP-decomposed tensor fusion over three omics modalities, followed by a residual deep network. The method is evaluated on BRCA, UCEC, and KIPAN against RF, XGBoost, DFN, GCN, and GEDFN baselines over 20 stratified splits, reporting accuracy, F1-weighted, and F1-macro plus Welch t-tests. The authors claim consistent state-of-the-art performance and additionally provide modality- and feature-level interpretability scores.

Significance. If the experimental protocol is leakage-free, the paper offers a useful integration of tree-based supervised graph construction with low-rank tensor fusion, and the interpretability component is a practical addition. The evaluation is extensive for a bioinformatics methods paper: 20 repeated splits, confidence intervals, and pairwise statistical tests on three cancer cohorts. The biological plausibility checks (e.g., FAM134B, FOXC1) strengthen the interpretability claim. However, the central performance claim is contingent on an unresolved question about whether the supervised graph construction is refit within each training split, and the KIPAN results are mostly not statistically significant; both issues must be addressed before the 'consistently outperforms' conclusion can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3 ('Directed Weighted Graph Construction') and Section 4 ('Baselines and Experimental Setting')] The graph construction is explicitly supervised: XGBoost uses labels Y to select features and build directed weighted edges. The protocol only describes '20 independent stratified train-validation-test splits' and says GCN and GEDFN use graphs constructed via XGBoost, but it never states that the XGBoost graph construction is rerun inside each training fold. If the graphs are built once on the full dataset before splitting, then test labels influence both the selected feature set p_i^* and the adjacency matrices used by TF-DWGNet and by the GCN/GEDFN baselines, inflating the margins in Table 3. This is load-bearing for the central claim. Please state explicitly that graph construction is performed per training fold (or per training+validation split only), or release code/rerun experiments under a nested-CV protocol.
  2. [Section 4.1, Table 3 (KIPAN rows)] The abstract and conclusion state that TF-DWGNet 'consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines across multiple metrics and statistical tests.' On KIPAN, however, the absolute gains over the strongest baseline GEDFN are small (accuracy 0.964 vs 0.957; F1-macro 0.956 vs 0.946) and, by the authors' own report, 'most differences are not significant (p-value > 0.05).' This overstates the evidence. The claim should be qualified to BRCA (and partially UCEC), or the KIPAN proof-of-concept framing should be made explicit in the abstract and conclusion.
  3. [Data and Code Availability] The manuscript states that datasets and code are 'available upon request' and will be made public upon publication. Because the central ambiguity in the experimental protocol (Major Comment 1) is precisely a graph-construction protocol ambiguity, the lack of released code makes the issue currently irresolvable. For a methodological paper whose contribution is the graph construction and fusion mechanism, providing the code is necessary to verify the reported results.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Baselines and Experimental Setting; Table 2 caption] Typographical inconsistencies: 'TG-DWGNet' appears in the experimental setup text, and 'TF-DMGNet' appears in the Table 2 caption. These should be 'TF-DWGNet.'
  2. [Section 3, GEDFN layer equation] The layer uses the symmetrically normalized adjacency ~D^{-1/2}~A~D^{-1/2}. For a directed weighted graph, ~A is not symmetric and ~D is not uniquely defined; the paper should specify whether ~D is the in-degree or out-degree matrix, or otherwise define the normalization.
  3. [Section 3, Tensor Fusion] With P_i ∈ R^{R×(p_i^*+1)} and Z_i^* ∈ R^{n×(p_i^*+1)}, the product P_i Z_i^* is R×n, not n×R. The element-wise product across modalities and the subsequent fused representation should specify the orientation (e.g., transpose to n×R) to avoid confusion.
  4. [Table 3 note] The superscript explanation reads 'TF-DWGNet is statistically significant than the corresponding baseline'; it should be 'significantly better than' or equivalent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the claims are empirical architecture comparisons, not derivations that reduce to their inputs.

full rationale

TF-DWGNet's central claim is an empirical performance comparison on three cancer datasets, supported by a supervised graph-construction pipeline, GNN encoders, tensor fusion, and a residual classifier. The supervised XGBoost graph construction legitimately uses labels during training; that is standard supervised feature/graph learning, not a circular derivation. The reported test metrics come from held-out splits over 20 train/validation/test runs, and no equation in the paper defines the predicted labels as a fitted constant or as a direct restatement of the input labels. The only self-citation, reference [5], is used for residual-network building blocks and is not load-bearing for the novelty or the empirical result. The paper also explicitly acknowledges that learned graph structures have not been externally validated against known pathways, which is an honest limitation. The potential ambiguity about whether XGBoost graphs are rebuilt inside each split is a data-leakage/soundness concern, not a circularity in the derivational sense. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz-by-citation, or renaming of prior work as new is evident. Hence the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model relies on standard tensor decomposition math, domain assumptions about XGBoost graph interpretability, and hyperparameters tuned on validation data. No new physical or biological entities are postulated.

free parameters (5)
  • Tensor fusion rank R = 48
    Tuned on validation; selected from {4,8,16,24,30,32,40,48,50,64}.
  • Number of XGBoost trees = 100
    Set to 100 after preliminary tests, no ablation reported.
  • L2 regularization lambda = 0.01
    Fixed constant in loss function.
  • Dropout rate = 0.5
    Regularization hyperparameter.
  • Learning rate = 0.0001
    Optimizer step size.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption XGBoost split co-occurrence patterns encode task-relevant directional biological interactions
    Section 3: graph edges are defined by feature order along tree splitting paths; no independent validation of this mapping.
  • domain assumption CP decomposition with rank R captures sufficient interaction signal
    Section 3: low-rank approximation is used for efficiency; the chosen R=48 is not justified from data.
  • domain assumption Graph construction and feature selection are performed on training folds only
    Not explicitly stated; if done on the full dataset, test labels leak into graph structure.
  • standard math Standard tensor algebra and properties (rank upper bound, NP-hardness)
    Section 3, Proposition 3.3 and related references.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TF-DWGNet: A Directed Weighted Graph Neural Network with Tensor Fusion for Multi-Omics Cancer Subtype Classification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H4HZ3LSY

@misc{pith2026250916301,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TF-DWGNet: A Directed Weighted Graph Neural Network with Tensor Fusion for Multi-Omics Cancer Subtype Classification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H4HZ3LSY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.16301}
}
read the original abstract

Integration and analysis of multi-omics data provide valuable insights for improving cancer subtype classification. However, such data are inherently heterogeneous, high-dimensional, and exhibit complex intra- and inter-modality dependencies. Graph neural networks (GNNs) offer a principled framework for modeling these structures, but existing approaches often rely on prior knowledge or predefined similarity networks that produce undirected or unweighted graphs and fail to capture task-specific directionality and interaction strength. Interpretability at both the modality and feature levels also remains limited. To address these challenges, we propose TF-DWGNet, a novel Graph Neural Network framework that combines tree-based Directed Weighted graph construction with Tensor Fusion for multiclass cancer subtype classification. TF-DWGNet introduces two key innovations: (i) a supervised tree-based strategy that constructs directed, weighted graphs tailored to each omics modality, and (ii) a tensor fusion mechanism that captures unimodal, bimodal, and trimodal interactions using low-rank decomposition for computational efficiency. Experiments on three real-world cancer datasets demonstrate that TF-DWGNet consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines across multiple metrics and statistical tests. In addition, the model provides biologically meaningful insights through modality-level contribution scores and ranked feature importance. These results highlight that TF-DWGNet is an effective and interpretable solution for multi-omics integration in cancer research.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.16301 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed TF-DWGNet framework, which includes four key modules: (i) XGBoost for feature selection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Performance comparison across 20 seeds on the BRCA dataset using violin plots. Each violin illustrates the distribution, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Relative importance of different omics types (DNA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Histogram of DNA methylation, mRNA, and miRNA feature values in the preprocessed BRCA, UCEC, and KIPAN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hazem Ayman, Madonna Bassem, Malak Madkour, Mariam Fawzi, Nada Amr, Youmna Yousry, Ziad Elgayar, and Ashraf Abdelraouf. 2023. A Review of Multi- omics and Machine Learning: Advancements and Applications in Cancer Re- search. In2023 International Mobile, Intelligent, and Ubiquitous Computing Con- ference (MIUCC). IEEE, 1–8

    2023

  2. [2]

    Leo Breiman. 2001. Random forests.Machine learning45, 1 (2001), 5–32

    2001

  3. [3]

    Michael M Bronstein, Joan Bruna, Yann LeCun, Arthur Szlam, and Pierre Van- dergheynst. 2017. Geometric deep learning: going beyond euclidean data.IEEE Signal Processing Magazine34, 4 (2017), 18–42

    2017

  4. [4]

    Eckart-Young

    J Douglas Carroll and Jih-Jie Chang. 1970. Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via an N-way generalization of “Eckart-Young” decom- position.Psychometrika35, 3 (1970), 283–319

    1970

  5. [5]

    Dongwei Chen, Fei Hu, Guokui Nian, and Tiantian Yang. 2020. Deep residual learning for nonlinear regression.Entropy22, 2 (2020), 193

    2020

  6. [6]

    Tianqi Chen and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system. InProceedings of the 22nd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. 785–794

    2016

  7. [7]

    Sandhya Chipurupalli, Raja Ganesan, Giulia Martini, Luigi Mele, Alessio Reggio, Marianna Esposito, Elango Kannan, Vigneshwaran Namasivayam, Paolo Grumati, Vincenzo Desiderio, et al. 2022. Cancer cells adapt FAM134B/BiP mediated ER- phagy to survive hypoxic stress.Cell death & disease13, 4 (2022), 357

    2022

  8. [8]

    2016.Deep learning

    Ian Goodfellow, Yoshua Bengio, and Aaron Courville. 2016.Deep learning. MIT press

    2016

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Will Hamilton, Zhitao Ying, and Jure Leskovec. 2017. Inductive representation learning on large graphs.Advances in neural information processing systems30 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    explanatory

    Richard A Harshman et al. 1970. Foundations of the PARAFAC procedure: Models and conditions for an “explanatory” multi-modal factor analysis.UCLA working papers in phonetics16, 1 (1970), 84

    1970

  3. [11]

    Johan Håstad. 1989. Tensor rank is NP-complete. InInternational colloquium on automata, languages, and programming. Springer, 451–460

    1989

  4. [12]

    Frank L Hitchcock. 1927. The expression of a tensor or a polyadic as a sum of products.Journal of Mathematics and Physics6, 1-4 (1927), 164–189

    1927

  5. [13]

    Leroy Hood and Lee Rowen. 2013. The Human Genome Project: big science transforms biology and medicine.Genome medicine5 (2013), 1–8. Preprint, arXiv, 2025 Yang and Chen

    2013

  6. [14]

    Idaho C3+3 Collaboration. 2022. Falcon: High Performance Supercomputer. https://doi.org/10.7923/falcon.id. Accessed: 2025-06-05

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    Jeff Johnson, Michael Choi, Farnaz Dadmanesh, Bingchen Han, Ying Qu, Yi Yu- Rice, Xiao Zhang, Sanjay Bagaria, Clive Taylor, Armando E Giuliano, et al. 2016. FOXC1 identifies basal-like breast cancer in a hereditary breast cancer cohort. Oncotarget7, 46 (2016), 75729

    2016

  8. [16]

    Ruth Johnson, Michelle M Li, Ayush Noori, Owen Queen, and Marinka Zitnik

  9. [17]

    Ziynet Nesibe Kesimoglu and Serdar Bozdag. 2023. SUPREME: multiomics data in- tegration using graph convolutional networks.NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics 5, 2 (2023), lqad063

    2023

  10. [18]

    Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. 2017. Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networks. InInternational Conference on Learning Repre- sentations

    2017

  11. [19]

    Tamara G Kolda and Brett W Bader. 2009. Tensor decompositions and applications. SIAM review51, 3 (2009), 455–500

    2009

  12. [20]

    Yunchuan Kong and Tianwei Yu. 2018. A graph-embedded deep feedforward network for disease outcome classification and feature selection using gene expression data.Bioinformatics34, 21 (2018), 3727–3737

    2018

  13. [21]

    Yunchuan Kong and Tianwei Yu. 2020. forgeNet: a graph deep neural network model using tree-based ensemble classifiers for feature graph construction.Bioin- formatics36, 11 (2020), 3507–3515

    2020

  14. [22]

    Joseph B Kruskal. 1989. Rank, decomposition, and uniqueness for 3-way and N-way arrays. InMultiway data analysis. 7–18

    1989

  15. [23]

    Yann Lecun, Yoshua Bengio, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2015. Deep learning.Nature 521, 7553 (2015), 436–444. doi:10.1038/nature14539

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    Xiao Li, Jie Ma, Ling Leng, Mingfei Han, Mansheng Li, Fuchu He, and Yunping Zhu. 2022. MoGCN: a multi-omics integration method based on graph convo- lutional network for cancer subtype analysis.Frontiers in Genetics13 (2022), 806842

    2022

  17. [25]

    Yuxing Lu, Rui Peng, Lingkai Dong, Kun Xia, Renjie Wu, Shuai Xu, and Jinzhuo Wang. 2023. Multiomics dynamic learning enables personalized diagnosis and prognosis for pancancer and cancer subtypes.Briefings in Bioinformatics24, 6 (11 2023). doi:10.1093/bib/bbad378

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    black box

    Julian D Olden and Donald A Jackson. 2002. Illuminating the “black box”: a randomization approach for understanding variable contributions in artificial neural networks.Ecological modelling154, 1-2 (2002), 135–150

    2002

  19. [27]

    Veličković Petar, Cucurull Guillem, Casanova Arantxa, Romero Adriana, Lio Pietro, and B Yoshua. 2018. Graph attention networks. InInternational conference on learning representations, Vol. 8

    2018

  20. [28]

    Indhupriya Subramanian, Srikant Verma, Shiva Kumar, Abhay Jere, and Kris- hanpal Anamika. 2020. Multi-omics data integration, interpretation, and its application.Bioinformatics and biology insights14 (2020), 1177932219899051

    2020

  21. [29]

    Raihanul Bari Tanvir, Md Mezbahul Islam, Masrur Sobhan, Dongsheng Luo, and Ananda Mohan Mondal. 2024. MOGAT: a multi-omics integration framework using graph attention networks for cancer subtype prediction.International Journal of Molecular Sciences25, 5 (2024), 2788

    2024

  22. [30]

    Tongxin Wang, Wei Shao, Zhi Huang, Haixu Tang, Jie Zhang, Zhengming Ding, and Kun Huang. 2021. MOGONET integrates multi-omics data using graph con- volutional networks allowing patient classification and biomarker identification. Nature communications12, 1 (2021), 3445

    2021

  23. [31]

    Asim Waqas, Aakash Tripathi, Ravi P Ramachandran, Paul A Stewart, and Ghulam Rasool. 2024. Multimodal data integration for oncology in the era of deep neural networks: a review.Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence7 (2024), 1408843

    2024

  24. [32]

    Jiecheng Wu, Zhaoliang Chen, Shunxin Xiao, Genggeng Liu, Wenjie Wu, and Shiping Wang. 2024. DeepMoIC: multi-omics data integration via deep graph convolutional networks for cancer subtype classification.BMC genomics25, 1 (2024), 1–13

    2024

  25. [33]

    Zonghan Wu, Shirui Pan, Fengwen Chen, Guodong Long, Chengqi Zhang, and Philip S Yu. 2020. A comprehensive survey on graph neural networks.IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems32, 1 (2020), 4–24

    2020

  26. [34]

    Keyulu Xu, Weihua Hu, Jure Leskovec, and Stefanie Jegelka. 2019. How powerful are graph neural networks?. InInternational Conference on Learning Representa- tions

    2019

  27. [35]

    Hu Yang, Zhong Zhuang, and Wei Pan. 2021. A graph convolutional neural network for gene expression data analysis with multiple gene networks.Statistics in Medicine40, 25 (2021), 5547–5564

    2021

  28. [36]

    Xiaohui Yao, Xiaohan Jiang, Haoran Luo, Hong Liang, Xiufen Ye, Yanhui Wei, and Shan Cong. 2024. Mocat: multi-omics integration with auxiliary classifiers enhanced autoencoder.BioData Mining17, 1 (2024), 9

    2024

  29. [37]

    Amir Zadeh, Minghai Chen, Soujanya Poria, Erik Cambria, and Louis-Philippe Morency. 2017. Tensor fusion network for multimodal sentiment analysis.arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.07250(2017)

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Shaza B Zaghlool and Omneya Attallah. 2022. A review of deep learning methods for multi-omics integration in precision medicine. In2022 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM). IEEE, 2208–2215

    2022

  31. [39]

    Xiao-Meng Zhang, Li Liang, Lin Liu, and Ming-Jing Tang. 2021. Graph neural networks and their current applications in bioinformatics.Frontiers in genetics 12 (2021), 690049

    2021

  32. [40]

    Ziwei Zhang, Peng Cui, and Wenwu Zhu. 2020. Deep learning on graphs: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering34, 1 (2020), 249–270

    2020

  33. [41]

    Chen Zhao, Anqi Liu, Xiao Zhang, Xuewei Cao, Zhengming Ding, Qiuying Sha, Hui Shen, Hong Wen Deng, and Weihua Zhou. 2024. CLCLSA: Cross-omics linked embedding with contrastive learning and self attention for integration with incomplete multi-omics data.Computers in Biology and...

    2024

  34. [42]

    Fei Zhao, Chengcui Zhang, and Baocheng Geng. 2024. Deep multimodal data fusion.ACM computing surveys56, 9 (2024), 1–36

    2024

  35. [43]

    Yating Zhong, Yuzhong Peng, Yanmei Lin, Dingjia Chen, Hao Zhang, Wen Zheng, Yuanyuan Chen, and Changliang Wu. 2023. MODILM: towards better complex diseases classification using a novel multi-omics data integration learning model. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making23, ...

    2023

  36. [44]

    Jie Zhou, Ganqu Cui, Shengding Hu, Zhengyan Zhang, Cheng Yang, Zhiyuan Liu, Lifeng Wang, Changcheng Li, and Maosong Sun. 2020. Graph neural networks: A review of methods and applications.AI open1 (2020), 57–81. A Supplemental Material A.1 Data Distribution Histograms Figure 4 ...

    2020

  37. [2024]

    Graph artificial intelligence in medicine.Annual review of biomedical data science7, 2024 (2024), 345–368

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.