MoXGATE: Modality-aware cross-attention for multi-omic gastrointestinal cancer sub-type classification

Abrar Rahman Abir; Dipanwita Mallick; Liqing Zhang; Sajib Acharjee Dip; Uddip Acharjee Shuvo

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

MoXGATE: Modality-aware cross-attention for multi-omic gastrointestinal cancer sub-type classification

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read MoXGATE fuses gene, methylation, and miRNA data with cross-attention and learnable modality weights, reporting 95% accuracy on gastrointestinal adenocarcinoma subtype classification and 89% on breast cancer.

desk verdict Plausible attention-based fusion for GIAC subtyping, but the headline accuracy rests on an unshown ablation and an unspecified test-set split for hyperparameter selection. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06980 v1 pith:X4BYUBML submitted 2025-06-08 cs.LG cs.AI

Sajib Acharjee Dip , Uddip Acharjee Shuvo , Dipanwita Mallick , Abrar Rahman Abir , Liqing Zhang This is my paper

classification cs.LGcs.AI

keywords multi-omicintegrationcross-attentioncancersubtypeclassificationgastrointestinaladenocarcinomabreastfocallossmodalityweightsTCGA

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

This paper tries to establish that a neural architecture which first encodes each omic modality (gene expression, DNA methylation, miRNA) with its own self-attention transformer and then fuses the encoded representations with a modality-weighted cross-attention layer can classify gastrointestinal adenocarcinoma subtypes more accurately than concatenation-based, graph-based, or self-attention-only baselines. The reported result is 95% accuracy and 0.94 F1-score on a held-out esophageal carcinoma test set, with the same model transferring to breast cancer at 89% accuracy. The authors argue that explicit cross-modal attention and learnable modality weights are what drive the gain, and that focal loss helps with class imbalance. A careful reader would care because multi-omic integration is a known bottleneck in cancer subtyping, and the paper offers a concrete fusion mechanism with interpretable per-modality weights.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the modality-weighted cross-attention fusion module. Each omic modality passes through its own multi-head self-attention encoder, producing representations $Z_1, Z_2, Z_3$; these are stacked into a tensor $C$ from which query, key, and value projections are computed jointly, so attention weights $A_c = \mathrm{softmax}(Q_c K_c^\top / \sqrt{d})$ encode inter-modality dependencies. The attention output is combined with learnable scalar weights $w_1, w_2, w_3$ (initialized at 0.33 and constrained to sum to 1) to form the final fused representation, and classification is trained with focal loss ($\alpha_i=1$, $\gamma=2$) plus Frobenius regularization on the cross-attention weights. This machinery is what lets the model go beyond concatenation: instead of treating omics as independent feature blocks, it computes pairwise interactions across modalities and lets the training signal decide how much each modality contributes.

What would settle it

Re-run the same training pipeline with the number of cross-attention heads chosen by validation accuracy rather than test accuracy, then evaluate on the untouched ESCA test set; if accuracy drops below the reported 0.95 or below the moBRCAnet baseline, the central performance claim is not reproducible as stated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that modality-weighted cross-attention outperforms simple concatenation and self-attention-only fusion for multi-omic cancer subtype classification. On the GIAC task, the MoXGATE model reaches accuracy 0.95, precision 0.96, recall 0.95, and F1-score 0.94, beating moBRCAnet (0.93/0.92), a gated-attention variant (0.93/0.92), and an autoencoder-plus-cross-attention baseline (0.72/0.79). Ablations show that methylation data alone already attains 0.95 accuracy, while adding gene expression and miRNA maintains, rather than clearly improves, that figure; the full model is still reported as the best. The same architecture applied to breast cancer data reaches 0.89 accuracy and 0.88 F1-score, which the authors read as evidence of generalizability.

Load-bearing premise

The reported 95% accuracy assumes the ESCA test set was never used to choose model settings; the appendix reports picking 32 attention heads by test accuracy, which would leak test information and inflate the result.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim holds, cross-attention fusion should replace simple concatenation in multi-omic subtyping pipelines, because it explicitly models inter-modality dependencies rather than treating omics as independent feature blocks.
The ablation result that methylation alone matches the full model at 0.95 accuracy implies that methylation carries most of the subtype signal in GIAC; the gain of the full model over methylation-only is not established on this test set.
The model's transfer to breast cancer (0.89 accuracy) suggests the fusion mechanism is cancer-agnostic and could be applied to other cancer cohorts without architectural changes.
Because focal loss and modality weights are dataset-agnostic, the same design can be reused for any multi-omic classification task with class imbalance, such as rare cancer subtypes.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable extension is to compare MoXGATE against a methylation-only model on a cohort where methylation is less informative; if the gap widens, cross-attention fusion is genuinely additive rather than riding on a single dominant modality.
The head-count ablation (8/16/32 heads) is the one place where the held-out set appears to leak into model selection; a nested validation with head count chosen on the validation set would give an unbiased estimate of the reported 0.95.
The learnable modality weights are global scalars, so the model cannot express patient-specific modality importance; extending them to per-sample attention (as the discussion notes) would make the interpretability claim stronger.
If the method generalizes as claimed, a natural next step is pan-cancer subtyping across more than five subtypes, where the cross-attention interaction space grows and the class-imbalance benefit of focal loss becomes more consequential.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

MoXGATE is an incremental but reasonable application of attention-based fusion to GIAC subtype classification. The architecture — per-modality self-attention, cross-attention, learnable modality weights, focal loss — is a combination of published pieces, and the paper is upfront about that. Its better idea is the evaluation design: train on COAD/READ/STAD, test on held-out ESCA, which is a sensible way to ask whether the model generalizes across GIAC sites.

The evidence for the headline 0.95 accuracy has real holes. The paper claims an ablation showing cross-attention beats simple concatenation, but no such experiment appears; the ablations shown are for attention heads and architectural components. The abstract's 'unseen cancer types' claim about breast cancer is also wrong as written — they train on 80% of BRCA and test on the rest, which is a standard split, not a transfer test.

More seriously, the paper never says which split was used for the attention-head ablation in Table 5. Appendix B reserves ESCA for testing, but the ablation section doesn't specify. If Table 5 was computed on ESCA, the 32-head choice is selected on the test set and the reported 0.95 is optimistic; the comparison to baselines at 0.93 no longer is a clean holdout. If it was computed on the validation set, the paper needs to say so. This ambiguity is a load-bearing reporting gap, not a reason to assume deliberate impropriety.

The statistical support is also thin: single runs, no error bars, 79 test samples, and the gap over moBRCA-net is about two correct predictions. Table 2 shows methylation alone already hits 0.95, so the fusion machinery isn't obviously the driver.

What's good: the writing is clear, the architecture is plausible, and the train-on-three-test-on-one framing is a useful robustness check. The limitations section is honest about computational cost and lack of patient-level interpretability.

Bottom line: a workshop-level contribution with an overreached abstract and a few missing experiments. It's not a strong rejection on scientific grounds — the architecture could work — but the current evidence doesn't justify the state-of-the-art claims. I'd send it to peer review and ask the authors to (a) state the split for all ablations, (b) show the cross-attention vs concatenation result, and (c) report error bars or significance tests. If they do that, it might be a decent applied paper.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes MoXGATE, a deep-learning framework for multi-omic cancer subtype classification that combines modality-specific self-attention encoders, a modality-weighted cross-attention fusion layer, and focal loss. The authors report 95% accuracy and 0.94 F1-score on a GIAC task in which COAD/READ/STAD samples are used for training and validation and ESCA samples are held out for testing, and they also report results on a BRCA dataset. The paper claims that cross-attention fusion outperforms simple concatenation and that the model generalizes to other cancer types.

Significance. If the reported results were obtained under a clean holdout protocol and accompanied by uncertainty quantification, MoXGATE would be a useful baseline for attention-based multi-omic fusion in cancer subtyping. The problem is clinically relevant, the architecture is clearly motivated, and the use of public TCGA data and ablation studies of head counts and architectural components are constructive elements. However, the central performance claim is not established as written: the test set may have been used for architecture selection, the advertised concatenation ablation is missing, the best single modality ties the full model, and no statistical uncertainty is reported. These issues are load-bearing because the paper's main contribution is an empirical performance claim.

major comments (5)

[Appendix C.1 / Appendix B] The head-count ablation in Table 5 is reported without stating whether it was computed on the validation split or on the ESCA test set. Appendix B states that ESCA was 'reserved exclusively for testing,' and C.1 concludes that '32 heads was selected as the optimal configuration' based on the best accuracy. If Table 5 used ESCA, then the test set was used for model selection, the 0.95 accuracy in Table 1 is selection-biased, and the comparison with baselines is not a fair holdout evaluation. The manuscript must clarify this point; if the ESCA test set was used for this selection, the experiments must be rerun with model selection performed on the validation split only.
[Abstract and Section D] The abstract and Section D claim that an ablation demonstrates 'the effectiveness of cross-attention over simple concatenation,' but no experiment with a concatenation-based fusion baseline is reported. Table 1 compares the proposed model with AE + Cross Attn, Self Attn + Gated Attn, Self Attn + Mod Gated Attn, and moBRCA-net; none is a simple-concatenation fusion baseline, and Table 6 ablates BatchNorm, skip connections, and feedforward attention only. The claim is therefore unsupported by the presented results.
[Table 2] Table 2 shows that methylation alone achieves the same accuracy (0.95) and F1-score (0.94) as the full three-modality model, and the Methylation + miRNA combination also reaches 0.95. This undercuts the central claim that modality-aware cross-attention fusion drives the reported performance. At minimum, the authors need to show that the full model's advantage over the methylation-only model is statistically significant and to report the corresponding uncertainty; as written, the single-modality result weakens the fusion argument.
[Section 3.1 and Tables 1/3] All performance numbers are single-run point estimates with no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests. On the ESCA test set (79 samples), the 0.95 versus 0.93 difference between the proposed model and moBRCA-net corresponds to roughly two correctly classified samples, so without repeated runs or statistical testing the claim of 'outperforming all baselines' is not established. The same concern applies to the BRCA generalization results in Table 3.
[Section 3.3 / Abstract] The abstract and Section 3.3 describe the BRCA evaluation as testing on 'unseen cancer types,' but Section 3.3 states that the model was trained on 80% of the BRCA samples. This is not an unseen-cancer evaluation; it is a within-cancer train/test split, and the 'generalizes well to unseen cancer types' claim is overstated. A truly unseen evaluation would require training on GIAC only and testing on BRCA, or an external validation cohort.

minor comments (6)

[Section 1 / References] The citation 'Ahren, 2009' for the importance of cancer subtyping appears to refer to a paper on G protein-coupled receptors in type 2 diabetes; please verify and replace it with an appropriate oncology reference.
[References] The 'Attention is all you need' reference is cited as 'Waswani et al., 2017' in the text and references; the correct author name is Vaswani, and the entry should be corrected.
[Section 2.1.4] Equation (13) defines focal loss with class-specific weights α_i, but the text states 'We set αi = 1'; this effectively disables class reweighting, so the stated contribution of focal loss for handling class imbalance should be clarified and the actual imbalance treatment described.
[Section 2.1.2] The cross-attention equations (6)?(9) do not specify how the stacked modality tensor C is treated as a sequence for attention; clarify whether attention is over the three modalities, over features, or both, and how multi-head cross-attention operates on C.
[Section C.1] The phrase 'increasing the number of heads from 8 to 16 does not significantly impact performance' uses 'significantly' in a non-statistical sense; since no significance tests are reported, rephrase to 'does not change the point estimate' or add the appropriate tests.
[Section 3.2] The sentence stating that 'the best-performing model is the fully integrated multi-omic approach' is not fully supported by Table 2, where methylation alone and Methylation + miRNA tie at 0.95 accuracy; the text should acknowledge the tie and discuss what the fusion adds beyond methylation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The headline GIAC accuracy is not an independent holdout result because the 32-head configuration is selected using the same evaluation set that is later reported as the final test performance.

fitted input called prediction [Appendix C.1 / Table 5; Appendix B; Section 3.1 / Table 1]
"when the number of heads is increased to 32, the model achieves a slight improvement, reaching the highest accuracy of 95% along with a higher recall (0.95) and precision (0.96)... Thus, 32 heads was selected as the optimal configuration"

Appendix B reserves the ESCA dataset exclusively for testing: 'we utilized three cancer datasets (COAD, READ, STAD) for training and validation, while reserving the ESCA dataset exclusively for testing.' The ablation in C.1 reports accuracies for 8, 16 and 32 heads and selects 32 heads 'as the optimal configuration' because it attains the highest accuracy of 0.95. That same 0.95 is then reported in Table 1 and Section 3.1 as MoXGATE's performance and used to claim it outperforms all baselines. Thus the headline number is the selected maximum of a hyperparameter search over the test set, not an unbiased prediction on a never-used holdout.

full rationale

The paper's formal contribution is an architecture built from standard self-attention and cross-attention equations; there is no derivation chain in which an output is defined in terms of the target result, and no load-bearing self-citation chain. The only substantive circularity is in the evaluation protocol: the attention-head count is chosen by accuracy on the ESCA set that Appendix B had reserved for testing, and the resulting 0.95 is then presented as the final test accuracy and as evidence of superiority over baselines. This is a partial circularity because one of the central reported predictions reduces to selection on the test labels. Other claims, such as BRCA performance and per-modality ablations, are empirical results with independent content, although the BRCA section trains on 80% of BRCA data despite the abstract's 'unseen cancer types' wording, which is a correctness issue rather than a circularity. The score of 6 reflects that the GIAC headline comparison is compromised by construction, while the rest of the paper is not definitionally circular.

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

The paper introduces no new physical or biological entities. The model components are architectural choices drawn from prior work. The main free parameters are hyperparameters and learned weights; many are underreported or selected in a biased way. The axioms are standard domain assumptions about the TCGA data and evaluation protocol.

free parameters (5)

Number of cross-attention heads = 32
Selected as 'optimal' based on test-set accuracy in Section C.1, not by a separate validation set; this is a hand-picked hyperparameter that affects the reported 0.95 accuracy.
learnable modality weights w1, w2, w3 = not reported
These are fitted during training and are central to the fusion and interpretability claims, but their final values are never reported, only the uniform initialization (0.33) is described.
Embedding dimension = 256
Chosen in Section 2.1.6 without sensitivity analysis; the model's capacity depends on this value.
Focal loss gamma and alpha = gamma=2, alpha=1
Set ad hoc in Section 2.1.4 with alpha=1 effectively disabling class weighting, yet the paper claims focal loss mitigates data imbalance; no tuning is shown.
Regularization coefficients lambda1 and lambda2 = unspecified
Equation 14 defines the loss with lambda1 and lambda2 but their values are never reported, so the objective is underspecified.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The TCGA molecular subtype labels for GIAC (CIN, GS, MSI, HM-SNV, EBV) are accurate ground truth.
Evaluation depends on these labels from Liu et al. (2018) as described in Appendix A; if the labels are noisy or wrong, the reported accuracy is questionable.
domain assumption Testing on ESCA after training on COAD, READ, and STAD measures generalizability across GIAC subtypes.
Appendix B describes this split; it assumes ESCA is representative and not used for model selection, but Section C.1 appears to violate this by selecting heads from test accuracies.
domain assumption The preprocessing steps (removing features with >40% missing values, median imputation, keeping common features) preserve biological signal without introducing bias.
Appendix B specifies these steps; no analysis shows they do not distort the data or create leakage.
ad hoc to paper The regularization term lambda1||w - 1||^2 is a reasonable way to keep modality weights balanced.
Equation 14 uses this term with a unit-vector target, which is chosen without biological or theoretical justification.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MoXGATE: Modality-aware cross-attention for multi-omic gastrointestinal cancer sub-type classification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X4BYUBML

@misc{pith2026250606980,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MoXGATE: Modality-aware cross-attention for multi-omic gastrointestinal cancer sub-type classification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X4BYUBML}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06980}
}

read the original abstract

Cancer subtype classification is crucial for personalized treatment and prognostic assessment. However, effectively integrating multi-omic data remains challenging due to the heterogeneous nature of genomic, epigenomic, and transcriptomic features. In this work, we propose Modality-Aware Cross-Attention MoXGATE, a novel deep-learning framework that leverages cross-attention and learnable modality weights to enhance feature fusion across multiple omics sources. Our approach effectively captures inter-modality dependencies, ensuring robust and interpretable integration. Through experiments on Gastrointestinal Adenocarcinoma (GIAC) and Breast Cancer (BRCA) datasets from TCGA, we demonstrate that MoXGATE outperforms existing methods, achieving 95\% classification accuracy. Ablation studies validate the effectiveness of cross-attention over simple concatenation and highlight the importance of different omics modalities. Moreover, our model generalizes well to unseen cancer types e.g., breast cancer, underscoring its adaptability. Key contributions include (1) a cross-attention-based multi-omic integration framework, (2) modality-weighted fusion for enhanced interpretability, (3) application of focal loss to mitigate data imbalance, and (4) validation across multiple cancer subtypes. Our results indicate that MoXGATE is a promising approach for multi-omic cancer subtype classification, offering improved performance and biological generalizability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06980 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Evaluation of an Autonomous Surface Robot Equipped with a Transformable Mobility Mechanism for Efficient Mobility Control
cs.RO 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

A transformable water-surface robot traveling mode used 10% less power and took 5% less time than station-keeping mode in a field round-trip test.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Islet g protein-coupled receptors as potential targets for treatment of type 2 diabetes

Bo Ahren. Islet g protein-coupled receptors as potential targets for treatment of type 2 diabetes. Nature reviews Drug discovery, 8 0 (5): 0 369--385, 2009

work page 2009
[2]

mobrca-net: a breast cancer subtype classification framework based on multi-omics attention neural networks

Joung Min Choi and Heejoon Chae. mobrca-net: a breast cancer subtype classification framework based on multi-omics attention neural networks. BMC bioinformatics, 24 0 (1): 0 169, 2023

work page 2023
[3]

One-versus-others attention: Scalable multimodal integration for biomedical data

Michal Golovanevsky, Eva Schiller, Akira Nair, Eric Han, Ritambhara Singh, and Carsten Eickhoff. One-versus-others attention: Scalable multimodal integration for biomedical data. In Biocomputing 2025: Proceedings of the Pacific Symposium, pp.\ 580--593. World Scientific, 2024

work page 2025
[4]

Mogcn: a multi-omics integration method based on graph convolutional network for cancer subtype analysis

Xiao Li, Jie Ma, Ling Leng, Mingfei Han, Mansheng Li, Fuchu He, and Yunping Zhu. Mogcn: a multi-omics integration method based on graph convolutional network for cancer subtype analysis. Frontiers in Genetics, 13: 0 806842, 2022

work page 2022
[5]

Comparative molecular analysis of gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas

Yang Liu, Nilay S Sethi, Toshinori Hinoue, Barbara G Schneider, Andrew D Cherniack, Francisco Sanchez-Vega, Jose A Seoane, Farshad Farshidfar, Reanne Bowlby, Mirazul Islam, et al. Comparative molecular analysis of gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas. Cancer cell, 33 0 (4): 0 721--735, 2018

work page 2018
[6]

Focal loss for dense object detection

T-YLPG Ross and GKHP Doll \'a r. Focal loss for dense object detection. In proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp.\ 2980--2988, 2017

work page 2017
[7]

Mogonet integrates multi-omics data using graph convolutional networks allowing patient classification and biomarker identification

Tongxin Wang, Wei Shao, Zhi Huang, Haixu Tang, Jie Zhang, Zhengming Ding, and Kun Huang. Mogonet integrates multi-omics data using graph convolutional networks allowing patient classification and biomarker identification. Nature communications, 12 0 (1): 0 3445, 2021

work page 2021
[8]

Attention is all you need

A Waswani, N Shazeer, N Parmar, J Uszkoreit, L Jones, A Gomez, L Kaiser, and I Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. In NIPS, 2017

2017

Show all 15 references

[9]

Multi-modality cross attention network for image and sentence matching

Xi Wei, Tianzhu Zhang, Yan Li, Yongdong Zhang, and Feng Wu. Multi-modality cross attention network for image and sentence matching. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp.\ 10941--10950, 2020

2020
[10]

The cancer genome atlas pan-cancer analysis project

John N Weinstein, Eric A Collisson, Gordon B Mills, Kenna R Shaw, Brad A Ozenberger, Kyle Ellrott, Ilya Shmulevich, Chris Sander, and Joshua M Stuart. The cancer genome atlas pan-cancer analysis project. Nature genetics, 45 0 (10): 0 1113--1120, 2013

2013
[11]

Deepmoic: multi-omics data integration via deep graph convolutional networks for cancer subtype classification

Jiecheng Wu, Zhaoliang Chen, Shunxin Xiao, Genggeng Liu, Wenjie Wu, and Shiping Wang. Deepmoic: multi-omics data integration via deep graph convolutional networks for cancer subtype classification. BMC genomics, 25 0 (1): 0 1--13, 2024

2024
[12]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...
[13]

@esa (Ref

\@ifxundefined[1] #1\@undefined \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifnum[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifx[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo [2] @ #1 \@temptokena #2 #1 @ \@temptokena \@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should ...
[14]

\@lbibitem[] @bibitem@first@sw\@secondoftwo \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 @tmp #1 NAT@b@open@#2 NAT@b@shut@#2 \@ifnum @merge>\@ne @bibitem@firs...
[15]

@open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifxundefined @sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifxundefined @heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel @NAT@ctr \@bibset...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Islet g protein-coupled receptors as potential targets for treatment of type 2 diabetes

Bo Ahren. Islet g protein-coupled receptors as potential targets for treatment of type 2 diabetes. Nature reviews Drug discovery, 8 0 (5): 0 369--385, 2009

work page 2009

[2] [2]

mobrca-net: a breast cancer subtype classification framework based on multi-omics attention neural networks

Joung Min Choi and Heejoon Chae. mobrca-net: a breast cancer subtype classification framework based on multi-omics attention neural networks. BMC bioinformatics, 24 0 (1): 0 169, 2023

work page 2023

[3] [3]

One-versus-others attention: Scalable multimodal integration for biomedical data

Michal Golovanevsky, Eva Schiller, Akira Nair, Eric Han, Ritambhara Singh, and Carsten Eickhoff. One-versus-others attention: Scalable multimodal integration for biomedical data. In Biocomputing 2025: Proceedings of the Pacific Symposium, pp.\ 580--593. World Scientific, 2024

work page 2025

[4] [4]

Mogcn: a multi-omics integration method based on graph convolutional network for cancer subtype analysis

Xiao Li, Jie Ma, Ling Leng, Mingfei Han, Mansheng Li, Fuchu He, and Yunping Zhu. Mogcn: a multi-omics integration method based on graph convolutional network for cancer subtype analysis. Frontiers in Genetics, 13: 0 806842, 2022

work page 2022

[5] [5]

Comparative molecular analysis of gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas

Yang Liu, Nilay S Sethi, Toshinori Hinoue, Barbara G Schneider, Andrew D Cherniack, Francisco Sanchez-Vega, Jose A Seoane, Farshad Farshidfar, Reanne Bowlby, Mirazul Islam, et al. Comparative molecular analysis of gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas. Cancer cell, 33 0 (4): 0 721--735, 2018

work page 2018

[6] [6]

Focal loss for dense object detection

T-YLPG Ross and GKHP Doll \'a r. Focal loss for dense object detection. In proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp.\ 2980--2988, 2017

work page 2017

[7] [7]

Mogonet integrates multi-omics data using graph convolutional networks allowing patient classification and biomarker identification

Tongxin Wang, Wei Shao, Zhi Huang, Haixu Tang, Jie Zhang, Zhengming Ding, and Kun Huang. Mogonet integrates multi-omics data using graph convolutional networks allowing patient classification and biomarker identification. Nature communications, 12 0 (1): 0 3445, 2021

work page 2021

[8] [8]

Attention is all you need

A Waswani, N Shazeer, N Parmar, J Uszkoreit, L Jones, A Gomez, L Kaiser, and I Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. In NIPS, 2017

2017