Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 123 references

Graph Neural Networks in Multi-Omics Cancer Research: A Structured Survey

T0 review · 5 major / 5 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 This survey claims to be the first structured review of graph-neural-network methods for multi-omics cancer research, mapping 75 papers by task, architecture, and omics type.

desk verdict A useful but uneven survey catalog of GNN multi-omics cancer work; the taxonomy has fixable errors that currently keep it from being a reliable reference. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17234 v1 pith:LD6NPQLB submitted 2025-06-03 cs.LG cs.AI

Payam Zohari , Mostafa Haghir Chehreghani This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords graphneuralnetworksmulti-omicscancerresearchdataintegrationstructuredsurveytaxonomysubtypeclassificationbiomarkerdiscovery
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

The paper aims to close a gap it identifies: no prior survey covers the three-way intersection of graph neural networks (deep learning models that operate on data structured as networks of nodes and edges), multi-omics data integration, and cancer research. It reviews 75 papers and organizes them into a taxonomy split into upstream tasks that build or refine biological graphs and downstream tasks that predict clinical outcomes. Each paper is assigned exactly one primary task and one GNN architecture, and the omics types it uses are tabulated. The authors report trends toward hybrid and interpretable models, attention mechanisms, and contrastive learning, and present co-usage statistics showing transcriptomics and epigenomics dominate while proteomics is rare. If the taxonomy is accurate, it gives researchers a structured reference for designing GNN-based cancer pipelines and for spotting underused data modalities.

What carries the argument

The organizing device is a two-axis classification grid: each of the 75 papers is assigned exactly one primary task (from twelve task types split into upstream and downstream) and exactly one GNN architecture (from eleven architecture classes), with a dedicated hybrid class absorbing papers that combine multiple GNN variants. Omics usage is tracked over four types (genomics, transcriptomics, epigenomics, proteomics) and summarized as per-paper checkmarks in tables and as aggregate co-usage statistics. This grid carries the argument: it converts a heterogeneous literature into comparable cells, and the trends the paper reports (toward hybrid and interpretable models, attention, and contrastive learning) are read off patterns across those cells.

What would settle it

Re-count the omics usage from the paper's own per-task tables: if the number of papers marked as using transcriptomics does not sum to 74 across the classification, survival, biomarker, driver-gene, drug-response, and pathway tables, or if reassigning paper [56] (listed under classification despite its drug-response scope) to drug response changes the task distribution, the structured-taxonomy claim fails. A reader could also check whether the duplicated Section 5.2.4 corrupts the biomarker-discovery counts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the field can be structured by a unified taxonomy of tasks and architectures. The paper divides work into upstream tasks (gene essentiality, synthetic lethality, omics translation, temporal omics prediction, signaling-graph generation, and gene regulatory network inference) and downstream tasks (classification and subtyping, survival analysis, biomarker discovery, driver gene identification, drug response prediction, and pathway/module discovery). It classifies each paper by GNN type (GCN, GAT, Graph Transformer, GraphSAGE, GIN, hierarchical, geometric, hypergraph, general, multi-view, and hybrid) and by which of four omics types it uses. On this basis it reports that transcriptomics appears in 74 of 75 papers, epigenomics in 58, genomics in 38, and proteomics in 7, with a Jaccard similarity of about 0.76 for transcriptomics-epigenomics co-occurrence. The paper positions these tables and counts as the first structured map of the intersection.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 75-paper corpus was selected and categorized consistently under the Section 9 methodology, so that the tables and omics counts truthfully represent the field.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A researcher entering the area can use the taxonomy to locate the relevant method family for a given task and omics combination.
  • The reported dominance of transcriptomics and epigenomics implies that the most mature integration recipes are built around these two layers.
  • The trend toward hybrid and interpretable models suggests future work will increasingly combine architectures and attach explanation mechanisms.
  • The emerging directions of patient-specific graphs and knowledge-driven priors indicate a shift from generic molecular networks to personalized, curated structures.
  • The low representation of proteomics flags a data-availability gap that, if filled, could change the field's balance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I infer that the taxonomy's value depends on the reproducibility of the one-primary-category rule; a reader who re-categorizes borderline papers could obtain different trend lines.
  • The co-usage statistics imply a field following data availability rather than biological completeness, with proteomic-poor designs potentially under-representing protein-level mechanisms.
  • A testable extension would be a bibliometric re-run of the same search and screening protocol to see whether the 75-paper corpus and its category assignments can be reproduced.
  • The emphasis on patient-specific graphs suggests a convergence with personalized medicine, where graphs encode an individual's molecular state rather than a population average.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript surveys 75 papers that apply graph neural networks (GNNs) to multi-omics cancer data. Its central deliverable is a structured taxonomy that classifies each paper by task (upstream vs. downstream), GNN architecture, and the omics types used (genomics, transcriptomics, epigenomics, proteomics). It also reviews common datasets and evaluation metrics, discusses interpretability and future directions, and reports aggregate statistics on omics co-usage. The paper claims to be the first structured review of this specific intersection.

Significance. A reliable structured map of GNN-based multi-omics cancer work would be a useful contribution, and the manuscript has strengths: it assembles a substantial 75-paper corpus, organizes the literature along multiple axes (task, architecture, omics), includes upstream tasks that are often neglected, and provides a readable overview of datasets and metrics. The value of the survey, however, rests on the consistency and reproducibility of its categorization. Several load-bearing inconsistencies in the taxonomy and in the reported statistics currently prevent the manuscript from serving as an authoritative reference; these issues are local and correctable, so the contribution is recoverable in revision.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.2.4] Section 5.2.4, titled "Hybrid," is an exact duplicate of the General GNN paragraphs of Section 5.2.3: both passages describe mosGraphGPT [71] and MPGNN-HiLander [74] with identical text. This is not a matter of style; Table 20 lists both [71] and [74] under General GNN, so the duplicated "Hybrid" subsection contradicts the paper's own taxonomy and must be removed or replaced with actual hybrid-content discussion.
  2. [Section 9.5 / Table 4 / Table 17 / Table 22] The strict one-primary-task rule stated in Section 9.5 is violated by reference [56]. Reference [56] is listed under Classification and subtyping in Table 4 and Table 17, and it appears in Table 12 under General GNN for classification, yet its own title and description identify it as a drug response prediction model (XMR). It is absent from the Drug response prediction table (Table 22). Either the task assignment is wrong or the one-primary-task rule was not applied consistently; both possibilities undermine the taxonomy's reliability.
  3. [Section 5.2.1 / Table 13] The prose for MRGCN [41] states that it integrates gene expression, methylation, and CNV data, which correspond to transcriptomics, epigenomics, and genomics. Table 13, however, assigns [41] only two omics checkmarks. This is a concrete mismatch between the textual description and the structured taxonomy, and it indicates that the omics annotations were not performed consistently.
  4. [Section 8.3 / Figures 2 and 3] The co-usage statistics in Section 8.3 (transcriptomics in 74 of 75 papers, epigenomics in 58, genomics in 38, proteomics in 7, and a Jaccard similarity of approximately 0.76) cannot be verified from the manuscript's own tables because no complete omics matrix is provided. Given the misclassification of [56] and the [41] row inconsistency elsewhere, the aggregate counts and the Jaccard figure should not be presented as reliable without a supplementary table or a reproducible counting procedure.
  5. [Section 1] The claim that this is "the first structured review of multi-omics-driven, GNN-based approaches tailored for cancer studies" is not supported by the manuscript's own citations. References [22] and [23] are reviews covering GNNs in cancer research and GNN-based multi-omics integration in cancer, respectively. Without a systematic comparison of scope, corpus, and taxonomy against these existing works, the "first" claim is unjustified and should be softened or substantiated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5] The text refers to "Figure 5.1.1" but no such figure appears in the manuscript; the cross-reference should be fixed or the figure added.
  2. [Section 6.4] The KEGG paragraph switches to first person ("In this review, I will examine"), which is inconsistent with the rest of the manuscript's voice.
  3. [Section 7.1.4] The subsection is titled AUPRC but its first paragraph defines AUROC at length before introducing AUPRC; the heading and content should be aligned to avoid confusion.
  4. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including "Wighted F1-Score," "T ranscriptomic," "taks," "GA TIn," and "Homo pepiens"; a careful proofreading pass is needed.
  5. [Section 2] The long genome sequence, transcriptomics table, and simulated proteomics/methylation examples are illustrative but not essential; consider shortening or moving them to an appendix to improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the survey makes no predictive derivations, fits no parameters, and its taxonomy rests on the cited literature rather than on self-citations.

full rationale

This is a structured literature survey, not a derivation-based paper. It presents no equations that transform inputs into outputs, fits no parameters, and makes no empirical predictions. The central claims are taxonomic: papers are categorized by task, GNN architecture, and omics type, with the categorization rules stated in Section 9.5. The self-citations that appear (references [16], [17], [26], [27]) are used only in the Preliminaries to support general statements about graph neural networks and graph-based applications; they do not carry the survey's classification scheme, its omics co-usage statistics, or any other load-bearing conclusion. Consequently, none of the enumerated circularity patterns applies. The paper's novelty claim of being the 'first structured review' is weakened by its own cited prior surveys [22] and [23] covering the same intersection, and the taxonomy contains internal inconsistencies (e.g., placement of [56], duplicate Section 5.2.4, and omics-table contradictions). Those are correctness and rigor concerns, not circularity: the survey's structure is not defined in terms of its own conclusions, and no result is forced by a self-citation chain or by construction. The score is therefore 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities are present. The survey relies on assumptions about corpus completeness and categorization consistency, both of which are contradicted by internal evidence.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption The 75 papers selected through Google Scholar screening are representative of the field
    Section 9 describes inclusion criteria and chronological filtering but provides no complete search log, exclusion list, or reproducibility artifacts.
  • domain assumption Each paper can be assigned to exactly one primary task and one GNN architecture without ambiguity
    Section 9.5 states a strict single-category rule; the occurrence of [56] in two different task tables and duplicated text in Sections 5.2.3 and 5.2.4 violate this assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Graph Neural Networks in Multi-Omics Cancer Research: A Structured Survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LD6NPQLB

@misc{pith2026250617234,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Graph Neural Networks in Multi-Omics Cancer Research: A Structured Survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LD6NPQLB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17234}
}
read the original abstract

The task of data integration for multi-omics data has emerged as a powerful strategy to unravel the complex biological underpinnings of cancer. Recent advancements in graph neural networks (GNNs) offer an effective framework to model heterogeneous and structured omics data, enabling precise representation of molecular interactions and regulatory networks. This systematic review explores several recent studies that leverage GNN-based architectures in multi-omics cancer research. We classify the approaches based on their targeted omics layers, graph neural network structures, and biological tasks such as subtype classification, prognosis prediction, and biomarker discovery. The analysis reveals a growing trend toward hybrid and interpretable models, alongside increasing adoption of attention mechanisms and contrastive learning. Furthermore, we highlight the use of patient-specific graphs and knowledge-driven priors as emerging directions. This survey serves as a comprehensive resource for researchers aiming to design effective GNN-based pipelines for integrative cancer analysis, offering insights into current practices, limitations, and potential future directions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.17234 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Homo pepiens (human) prostate cancer pathway from KEGG. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Number of papers using different omics types for cancer study. Transcriptomics is the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Jaccard similarity for co-usage of omics types. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

123 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [56]

    Z. Wang, Y. Zhou, Y. Z. et al., Xmr: an explainable multimodal neural network for drug re- sponse prediction, Frontiers in Bioinformatics 3 (2023).doi:10.3389/fbinf.2023.1164482

    arXiv 2023

  2. [41]

    B. Yang, Y. Yang, M. Wang, X. Su, Mrgcn: cancer subtyping with multi-reconstruction graph convolutional network using full and partial multi-omics dataset, Bioinformatics 39 (6) (2023) btad353.doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btad353

    work page doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btad353 2023

  3. [60]

    C. Yin, Y. Cao, P. S. et al., Molecular subtyping of cancer based on robust graph neural network and multi-omics data integration, Frontiers in Genetics 13 (2022).doi:10.3389/ fgene.2022.884028

    arXiv 2022

  4. [22]

    Gogoshin, A

    G. Gogoshin, A. S. Rodin, Graph neural networks in cancer and oncology research: Emerging and future trends, Cancers 15 (24) (2023).doi:10.3390/cancers15245858. URLhttps://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/15/24/5858

    work page doi:10.3390/cancers15245858 2023

  5. [23]

    Zhang, Q

    M. Zhang, Q. Wu, X. Wang, W. Zhang, Graph neural networks for multi-omics integration in cancer research: a review, British Journal of Cancer (2024)

    2024

  6. [71]

    Zhang, D

    H. Zhang, D. Huang, E. C. et al., mosgraphgpt: a foundation model for multi-omic signaling graphs using generative ai, bioRxiv (2024).doi:10.1101/2024.08.01.606222. 45

    work page doi:10.1101/2024.08.01.606222 2024

  7. [74]

    Zhang, Q

    X. Zhang, Q. Liu, A graph neural network approach for hierarchical mapping of breast cancer protein communities, BMC Bioinformatics 26 (2025) 23.doi:10.1186/s12859-024-06015-x

    work page doi:10.1186/s12859-024-06015-x 2025

  8. [1]

    World Health Organization, Latest global cancer data: Cancer burden rises to 19.3 million new cases and 10.0 million cancer deaths in 2020,https://www.iarc.who.int/featured-news/ latest-global-cancer-data-cancer-burden-rises-to-19-3-million-new-cases-and-10-0-million-cancer-deaths-in-2020/, accessed: 2025-05-17 (2020)

    2020

Show all 123 references
  1. [2]

    Z. Wu, S. Pan, F. Chen, G. Long, C. Zhang, P. S. Yu, A comprehensive survey on graph neural networks, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 32 (1) (2021) 4–24.doi:10.1109/TNNLS.2020.2978386. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2020.2978386

    2021

  2. [3]

    S. G. Paul, A. Saha, M. Z. Hasan, S. R. H. Noori, A. Moustafa, A systematic review of graph neural network in healthcare-based applications: Recent advances, trends, and future directions, IEEE Access 12 (2024) 15145–15170.doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3354809

    2024

  3. [4]

    H. Wang, K. Lin, Q. Z. et al., Hypertmo: a trusted multi-omics integration framework based on hypergraph convolutional network for patient classification, Bioinformatics 40 (4) (2024) btae159.doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btae159

    2024 doi

  4. [5]

    Rajadhyaksha, A

    N. Rajadhyaksha, A. Chitkara, Graph contrastive learning for multi-omics data (01 2023). doi:10.48550/arXiv.2301.02242

    2023 doi arXiv

  5. [6]

    Zhang, D

    H. Zhang, D. Cao, Z. C. et al., mosgraphgen: a novel tool to generate multi-omics signaling graphs to facilitate integrative and interpretable graph ai model development, Bioinformatics Advances 4 (1) (2024) vbae151.doi:10.1093/bioadv/vbae151

    2024 doi

  6. [7]

    Hasin, M

    Y. Hasin, M. M. Seldin, A. J. Lusis, Multi-omics approaches to disease, Genome Biology 18 (1) (2017) 83.doi:10.1186/s13059-017-1215-1. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-017-1215-1

    2017 doi

  7. [8]

    Menyh´ art, B

    O. Menyh´ art, B. Gy˝ orffy, Multi-omics approaches in cancer research with applications in tu- mor subtyping, prognosis, and diagnosis, Computational and Structural Biotechnology Jour- nal 19 (2021) 949–960

    2021

  8. [9]

    Y. J. Heo, C. Hwa, G.-H. Lee, J.-M. Park, J.-Y. An, Integrative multi-omics approaches in cancer research: from biological networks to clinical subtypes, Molecules and Cells 44 (7) (2021) 433–443

    2021

  9. [10]

    Bersanelli, E

    M. Bersanelli, E. Mosca, D. Remondini, E. Giampieri, C. Sala, G. Castellani, L. Milanesi, Methods for the integration of multi-omics data: mathematical aspects, BMC Bioinformatics 17 (S2) (2016) 15.doi:10.1186/s12859-015-0857-9. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-015-0857-9

    2016 doi

  10. [11]

    B. B. Misra, C. Langefeld, M. Olivier, L. A. Cox, Integrated omics: Tools, advances, and future approaches, Journal of Molecular Endocrinology 62 (1) (2019) R21–R45.doi:10. 1530/JME-18-0055. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1530/JME-18-0055

    2019 doi

  11. [12]

    Zhang, P

    Z. Zhang, P. Cui, W. Zhu, Deep learning on graphs: A survey (2020).arXiv:1812.04202. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1812.04202 40

    2020 arXiv

  12. [13]

    L. Wu, P. Cui, J. Pei, L. Zhao, X. Guo, Graph neural networks: Foundation, frontiers and applications, in: Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD ’23, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2023, p. 5831–5832....

    2023

  13. [14]

    J. Zhou, G. Cui, S. Hu, Z. Zhang, C. Yang, Z. Liu, L. Wang, C. Li, M. Sun, Graph neural networks: A review of methods and applications, AI Open 1 (2020) 57–81.doi:10.1016/j. aiopen.2021.01.001. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666651021000012

    2020 doi

  14. [15]

    Khemani, S

    B. Khemani, S. Patil, K. Kotecha, et al., A review of graph neural networks: concepts, architectures, techniques, challenges, datasets, applications, and future directions, J Big Data 11 (2024) 18.doi:10.1186/s40537-023-00876-4

    2024 doi

  15. [16]

    Gholamzadeh Nasrabadi, A

    F. Gholamzadeh Nasrabadi, A. Kashani, P. Zahedi, M. Haghir Chehreghani, Content aug- mented graph neural networks, ACM Trans. WebJust Accepted (Oct 2024).doi:10.1145/ 3700790

    2024

  16. [18]

    Y. Lou, J. Li, T. Wang, A. Li, S. Qin, Advances in multi-omics data integration: biological insights and computational challenges, Genes 15 (12) (2024) 1551

    2024

  17. [19]

    Hanahan, The hallmarks of cancer: new dimensions, Nature Reviews Cancer 24 (2024) 167–186

    D. Hanahan, The hallmarks of cancer: new dimensions, Nature Reviews Cancer 24 (2024) 167–186

    2024

  18. [20]

    Y. Zhao, Z. Wang, X. Li, A comprehensive survey of graph neural networks in bioinformatics from the perspective of data analysis, Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine 2022 (2022) 9261537

    2022

  19. [21]

    Rappoport, R

    N. Rappoport, R. Shamir, Multi-omic and multi-view clustering algorithms: review and can- cer benchmark, Cell Systems 9 (5) (2020) 375–388

    2020

  20. [24]

    T. N. Kipf, M. Welling, Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks (2017). URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=SJU4ayYgl

    2017

  21. [25]

    W. L. Hamilton, Z. Ying, J. Leskovec, Inductive representation learning on large graphs, in: I. Guyon, U. von Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. M. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. V. N. Vishwanathan, R. Garnett (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Confer- ence on Ne...

    2017

  22. [26]

    M. H. Chehreghani, Half a decade of graph convolutional networks, Nat. Mach. Intell. 4 (3) (2022) 192–193.doi:10.1038/S42256-022-00466-8. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-022-00466-8

    2022 doi

  23. [27]

    Zohrabi, S

    M. Zohrabi, S. Saravani, M. H. Chehreghani, Centrality-based and similarity-based neigh- borhood extension in graph neural networks, J. Supercomput. 80 (16) (2024) 24638–24663. doi:10.1007/S11227-024-06336-X. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-024-06336-x

    2024 doi

  24. [28]

    Lakzaei, M

    B. Lakzaei, M. H. Chehreghani, A. Bagheri, Disinformation detection using graph neural networks: a survey, Artif. Intell. Rev. 57 (3) (2024) 52.doi:10.1007/S10462-024-10702-9. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-024-10702-9

    2024 doi

  25. [29]

    Lakzaei, M

    B. Lakzaei, M. H. Chehreghani, A. Bagheri, LOSS-GAT: label propagation and one-class semi-supervised graph attention network for fake news detection, Appl. Soft Comput. 174 (2025) 112965.doi:10.1016/J.ASOC.2025.112965. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2025.112965

    2025

  26. [30]

    Gholinejad, M

    N. Gholinejad, M. H. Chehreghani, Heterophily-aware fair recommendation using graph convolutional networks, CoRR abs/2402.03365 (2024).arXiv:2402.03365,doi:10.48550/ ARXIV.2402.03365. URLhttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.03365

    2024 doi arXiv

  27. [31]

    Gholinejad, M

    N. Gholinejad, M. H. Chehreghani, Disentangling popularity and quality: An edge classifica- tion approach for fair recommendation, CoRR abs/2502.15699 (2025).arXiv:2502.15699, doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2502.15699. URLhttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.15699

    2025 doi arXiv

  28. [32]

    S. G. Paul, A. Saha, M. Z. Hasan, S. R. H. Noori, A. Moustafa, A systematic review of graph neural network in healthcare-based applications: Recent advances, trends, and future directions, IEEE Access 12 (2024) 15145–15170

    2024

  29. [33]

    X. Meng, T. Zou, Clinical applications of graph neural networks in computational histopathol- ogy: A review, Computers in Biology and Medicine 164 (2023) 107201.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2023.107201. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010482...

    2023

  30. [34]

    Rohart, B

    F. Rohart, B. Gautier, A. L. Cao, mixomics: An r package for ’omics feature selection and multiple data integration, PLOS Computational Biology 13 (11) (2017) e1005752.doi:10. 1371/journal.pcbi.1005752. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005752

    2017 doi

  31. [35]

    Subramanian, S

    I. Subramanian, S. Verma, S. Kumar, A. Jere, K. Anamika, Multi-omics data integra- tion, interpretation, and its application, Bioinformatics and Biology Insights 14 (2020) 1177932219899051.doi:10.1177/1177932219899051. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1177/1177932219899051 42

    2020 doi

  32. [36]

    Y. Ren, Y. Gao, W. Du, W. Qiao, W. Li, Q. Yang, Y. Liang, G. Li, Classifying breast cancer using multi-view graph neural network based on multi-omics data, Frontiers in Genetics 15 (2024).doi:10.3389/fgene.2024.1363896

    2024

  33. [37]

    Alharbi, A

    F. Alharbi, A. Vakanski, B. Zhang, M. K. Elbashir, M. Mohammed, Comparative analysis of multi-omics integration using advanced graph neural networks for cancer classification (2024). arXiv:2410.05325. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2410.05325

    2024 arXiv

  34. [38]

    Alharbi, A

    F. Alharbi, A. Vakanski, M. K. Elbashir, M. Mohammed, Lasso–mogat: a multi-omics graph attention framework for cancer classification, Academia Biology 2 (3) (2024).doi:10.20935/ AcadBiol7325

    2024

  35. [39]

    L. Zhou, N. Wang, Z. Zhu, Identification of subtypes in digestive system tumors based on multi-omics data and graph convolutional network, International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics 15 (2024) 3567–3577.doi:10.1007/s13042-024-02109-3

    2024 doi

  36. [40]

    B. Li, T. Wang, S. Nabavi, Cancer molecular subtype classification by graph convolutional networks on multi-omics data, in: Proceedings of the 12th ACM International Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology, and Health Informatics, Association for Computing Machiner...

    2021

  37. [42]

    S. Xiao, H. Lin, C. Wang, S. Wang, J. C. Rajapakse, Graph neural networks with multi- ple prior knowledge for multi-omics data analysis, IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics 27 (9) (2023) 4591–4600.doi:10.1109/JBHI.2023.3284794

    2023

  38. [44]

    B. Li, S. A. Nabavi, A multimodal graph neural network framework for cancer molecular sub- type classification, BMC Bioinformatics 25 (2024) 27.doi:10.1186/s12859-023-05622-4

    2024 doi

  39. [45]

    J. Wu, Z. Chen, S. X. et al., Deepmoic: multi-omics data integration via deep graph convolutional networks for cancer subtype classification, BMC Genomics 25 (2024) 1209. doi:10.1186/s12864-024-11112-5

    2024 doi

  40. [46]

    B. Ryan, R. E. Marioni, T. I. Simpson, Multi-omic graph diagnosis (mogdx): a data inte- gration tool to perform classification tasks for heterogeneous diseases, Bioinformatics 40 (9) (2024) btae523.doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btae523

    2024 doi

  41. [47]

    R. B. Tanvir, M. M. Islam, M. S. et al., Mogat: A multi-omics integration framework using graph attention networks for cancer subtype prediction, International Journal of Molecular Sciences 25 (5) (2024) 2788.doi:10.3390/ijms25052788. 43

    2024 doi

  42. [48]

    T.-W. Lin, S. O. Arriagada, C. Lin, Multi-task learning graph neural networks for cancer prognosis prediction with genomic data, in: 2024 46th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 2024, pp. 1–5.doi:10. 1109/EMBC53108.2...

    2024

  43. [49]

    Zhang, F

    X. Zhang, F. Yang, X. Y. et al., Mocagcn: Cancer subtype classification by developing causal graph structure learning, in: 2024 IEEE International Conference on Medical Artificial Intel- ligence (MedAI), 2024, pp. 617–625.doi:10.1109/MedAI62885.2024.00087

    2024

  44. [50]

    W. Wu, S. Wang, Y. Z. et al., Mosgat: Uniting specificity-aware gats and cross modal- attention to integrate multi-omics data for disease diagnosis, IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics 28 (9) (2024) 5624–5637.doi:10.1109/JBHI.2024.3415641

    2024

  45. [51]

    W. Li, B. Xiang, F. Y. et al., scmhnn: a novel hypergraph neural network for integrative anal- ysis of single-cell epigenomic, transcriptomic and proteomic data, Briefings in Bioinformatics 24 (6) (2023) bbad391.doi:10.1093/bib/bbad391

    2023 doi

  46. [52]

    Z. N. Kesimoglu, S. Bozdag, Supreme: multiomics data integration using graph convolutional networks, NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics 5 (2) (2023) lqad063.doi:10.1093/nargab/ lqad063

    2023 doi

  47. [54]

    H. Gao, B. Zhang, L. L. et al., A universal framework for single-cell multi-omics data integra- tion with graph convolutional networks, Briefings in Bioinformatics 24 (3) (2023) bbad081. doi:10.1093/bib/bbad081

    2023 doi

  48. [57]

    K. Yang, J. Cheng, S. C. et al., Integration of multi-source gene interaction networks and omics data with graph attention networks to identify novel disease genes, bioRxiv (2023). doi:10.1101/2023.12.03.569371

    2023 doi

  49. [58]

    Pfeifer, H

    B. Pfeifer, H. Chereda, R. M. et al., Ensemble-gnn: federated ensemble learning with graph neural networks for disease module discovery and classification, Bioinformatics 39 (11) (2023) btad703.doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btad703

    2023 doi

  50. [59]

    Huang, S

    S. Huang, S. Xiao, W. L. et al., Multi-level knowledge integration with graph convolutional network for cancer molecular subtype classification, in: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), 2023, pp. 1983–1988.doi:10.1109/BIBM58861. 2023.103...

    2023

  51. [61]

    F. Han, X. Fan, P. L. et al., Optimized graph neural network-multilayer perceptron fusion classifier for metastatic prostate cancer detection in western and asian populations, Asian Journal of Urology (2025).doi:10.1016/j.ajur.2024.09.009

    2025 doi

  52. [62]

    H. Yan, D. Weng, D. Li, Y. Gu, W. Ma, Q. Liu, Prior knowledge-guided multilevel graph neural network for tumor risk prediction and interpretation via multi-omics data integration, Briefings in Bioinformatics 25 (3) (2024).doi:10.1093/bib/bbae184

    2024 doi

  53. [63]

    J. Zhu, J. H. Oh, A. K. Simhal, R. Elkin, L. Norton, J. O. Deasy, A. Tannenbaum, Geometric graph neural networks on multi-omics data to predict cancer survival outcomes, Computers in Biology and Medicine 163 (2023).doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2023.107117

    2023

  54. [64]

    Zhang, S

    Y. Zhang, S. Xiong, Z. Wang, Y. Liu, H. Luo, B. Li, Q. Zou, Local augmented graph neural network for multi-omics cancer prognosis prediction and analysis, Methods 213 (2023) 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.ymeth.2023.02.011

    2023 doi

  55. [65]

    X. Xing, F. Yang, H. Li, J. Zhang, Y. Zhao, M. Gao, J. Huang, J. Yao, Multi-level attention graph neural network based on co-expression gene modules for disease diagnosis and prognosis, Bioinformatics 38 (8) (2022) 2178–2186.doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btac088

    2022 doi

  56. [66]

    Y. Wang, Z. Zhang, H. Chai, Y. Yang, Multi-omics cancer prognosis analysis based on graph convolution network, in: 2021 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), 2021, pp. 1564–1568.doi:10.1109/BIBM52615.2021.9669797

    2021

  57. [67]

    M. K. Elbashir, A. Almotilag, M. A. Mahmood, M. Mohammed, Enhancing non-small cell lung cancer survival prediction through multi-omics integration using graph attention net- work, Diagnostics 14 (19) (2024) 2178.doi:10.3390/diagnostics14192178

    2024 doi

  58. [68]

    C. Y. Tan, H. F. Ong, C. H. Lim, M. S. Tan, E. H. Ooi, K. S. Wong, AMOGEL: A multi-omics classification framework using associative graph neural networks with prior knowledge for biomarker identification, BMC Bioinformatics 26 (94) (2025).doi:10.1186/ s12859-025-06111-6. URLht...

    2025 doi

  59. [69]

    Y. Wang, Z. Wang, X. Yu, X. Wang, J. Song, D.-J. Yu, F. Ge, More: a multi-omics data-driven hypergraph integration network for biomedical data classification and biomarker identifica- tion, Briefings in Bioinformatics 26 (1) (2024) bbae658.doi:10.1093/bib/bbae658

    2024 doi

  60. [70]

    R. Mao, L. Wan, M. Zhou, D. Li, Cox-sage: enhancing cox proportional hazards model with interpretable graph neural networks for cancer prognosis, Briefings in Bioinformatics 26 (2) (2025) bbaf108.doi:10.1093/bib/bbaf108

    2025 doi

  61. [72]

    C.-Y. Lu, Z. Liu, M. A. et al., Integration of gene expression and dna methylation data using mla-gnn for liver cancer biomarker mining, Frontiers in Genetics 15 (2024).doi: 10.3389/fgene.2024.1513938

    2024

  62. [73]

    B. Su, X. Wang, Y. Ouyang, X. Lin, Da-srn: Omics data analysis based on the sample network optimization for complex diseases, Computers in Biology and Medicine 164 (2023) 107252. doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2023.107252

    2023

  63. [76]

    W. Peng, Z. Zhou, W. Dai, N. Yu, J. Wang, Multi-network graph contrastive learning for cancer driver gene identification, IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering 11 (4) (2024) 3430–3440.doi:10.1109/TNSE.2024.3373652

    2024

  64. [77]

    Schulte-Sasse, S

    R. Schulte-Sasse, S. Budach, D. H. et al., Integration of multiomics data with graph convo- lutional networks to identify new cancer genes and their associated molecular mechanisms, Nature Machine Intelligence 3 (2021) 513–526.doi:10.1038/s42256-021-00325-y

    2021 doi

  65. [78]

    X. Li, J. Xu, J. Li, J. Gu, X. Shang, Towards simplified graph neural networks for identifying cancer driver genes in heterophilic networks, Briefings in Bioinformatics 26 (1) (2025) bbae691. doi:10.1093/bib/bbae691

    2025 doi

  66. [79]

    Dai, C.-J

    Y.-H. Dai, C.-J. Chang, P.-C. Shen, W.-L. Jheng, Y.-G. Chen, Driveromicsnet: An inte- grated graph convolutional network for multi-omics exploration of cancer driver genes, bioRxiv (2024).doi:10.1101/2024.07.21.604474

    2024 doi

  67. [80]

    D. Wang, X. Lv, X. Zheng, Mhn-gcn: A cancer driver gene prediction method for multi-omics data, in: 2024 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), 2024, pp. 3007–3012.doi:10.1109/SMC54092.2024.10831427

    2024

  68. [81]

    B. Chen, Z. Li, H. L. et al., Dmgnn: cancer driver gene identification based on mix- moment graph neural network, in: 2024 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), 2024, pp. 6240–6247.doi:10.1109/BIBM62325.2024.10822582

    2024

  69. [82]

    W. Zhao, X. Gu, S. C. et al., Modig: integrating multi-omics and multi-dimensional gene network for cancer driver gene identification based on graph attention network model, Bioin- formatics 38 (21) (2022) 4901–4907.doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btac622

    2022 doi

  70. [84]

    R. Yuan, J. Feng, H. Z. et al., Multi-omics data integration via novel interpretable k-hop graph attention network for signaling network inference, bioRxiv (2022).doi:10.1101/2022.09. 16.508281. 46

    2022 doi

  71. [85]

    Pfeifer, A

    B. Pfeifer, A. Saranti, A. Holzinger, Gnn-subnet: disease subnetwork detection with ex- plainable graph neural networks, Bioinformatics 38 (2022).doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/ btac478

    2022 doi

  72. [86]

    Z. Han, G. Yu, Y. Yang, Enhancing cancer gene prediction through aligned fusion of multiple ppi networks using graph transformer models, in: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), 2023, pp. 542–547.doi:10.1109/BIBM58861.2023. 10385593

    2023

  73. [87]

    S. Lin, P. Jia, scgraph2vec: a deep generative model for gene embedding augmented by graph neural network and single-cell omics data, GigaScience 13 (2024) giae108.doi:10.1093/ gigascience/giae108

    2024

  74. [88]

    Jiang, X.-S

    Q.-Y. Jiang, X.-S. Sun, H.-Y. Zeng, A novel explainable intelligent computational framework for identifying potential oncogenes, IEEE Internet of Things Journal (2025) 1–1doi:10.1109/ JIOT.2025.3526643

    2025

  75. [89]

    L. Pu, M. Singha, J. Ramanujam, M. Brylinski, Canceromicsnet: a multi-omics network- based approach to anti-cancer drug profiling, Oncotarget 13 (2022) 695–706.doi:10.18632/ oncotarget.28234

    2022

  76. [90]

    J. Li, B. Li, X. Zhang, X. Ma, Z. Li, Mdmni-dgd: A novel graph neural network approach for druggable gene discovery based on the integration of multi-omics data and the multi- view network, Computers in Biology and Medicine 185 (2025) 109511.doi:10.1016/j. compbiomed.2024.109511

    2025

  77. [91]

    S. Ren, Y. Lu, G. Z. et al., Integration of graph neural networks and multi-omics analysis identify the predictive factor and key gene for immunotherapy response and prognosis of bladder cancer, J Transl Med 22 (2024) 1141.doi:10.1186/s12967-024-05976-0

    2024 doi

  78. [92]

    C. Wang, G. A. Kumar, J. C. Rajapakse, Drug discovery and mechanism prediction with ex- plainable graph neural networks, Sci Rep 15 (2025) 179.doi:10.1038/s41598-024-83090-3

    2025 doi

  79. [93]

    Saeed, H

    D. Saeed, H. Xing, B. A. et al., Mgataf: multi-channel graph attention network with adaptive fusion for cancer-drug response prediction, BMC Bioinformatics 26 (2025) 19.doi:10.1186/ s12859-024-05987-0

    2025

  80. [94]

    Y. Liu, S. Tong, Y. Chen, Hmm-gdan: Hybrid multi-view and multi-scale graph duplex- attention networks for drug response prediction in cancer, Neural Networks 167 (2023) 213– 222.doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2023.08.036

    2023 doi

  81. [95]

    X. Liu, C. Song, F. H. et al., Graphcdr: a graph neural network method with contrastive learn- ing for cancer drug response prediction, Briefings in Bioinformatics 23 (1) (2021) bbab457. doi:10.1093/bib/bbab457

    2021 doi

  82. [96]

    C. Kang, H. Zhang, Z. L. et al., Lr-gnn: a graph neural network based on link representation for predicting molecular associations, Briefings in Bioinformatics 23 (1) (2021) bbab513.doi: 10.1093/bib/bbab513

    2021 doi

  83. [97]

    Y. Cui, Z. Wang, X. W. et al., Smg: self-supervised masked graph learning for cancer gene identification, Briefings in Bioinformatics 24 (6) (2023) bbad406.doi:10.1093/bib/bbad406. 47

    2023 doi

  84. [98]

    Liang, H

    H. Liang, H. Luo, Z. S. et al., Gremi: An explainable multi-omics integration framework for enhanced disease prediction and module identification, IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics 28 (11) (2024) 6983–6996.doi:10.1109/JBHI.2024.3439713

    2024

  85. [99]

    X. Han, B. Wang, C. Situ, Y. Qi, H. Zhu, Y. Li, X. Guo, scapgnn: A graph neural network- based framework for active pathway and gene module inference from single-cell multi-omics data, PLoS Biol. 21 (11) (2023) e3002369.doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3002369

    2023 doi

  86. [100]

    Fanfani, R

    V. Fanfani, R. V. Torne, P. Lio, G. Stracquadanio, Discovering cancer driver genes and pathways using stochastic block model graph neural networks, bioRxiv (2021).doi:10. 1101/2021.06.29.450342

    2021

  87. [101]

    Schapke, A

    J. Schapke, A. Tavares, M. Recamonde-Mendoza, Epgat: Gene essentiality prediction with graph attention networks, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinfor- matics 19 (3) (2022) 1615–1626.doi:10.1109/TCBB.2021.3054738

    2022

  88. [102]

    S. Wang, F. Xu, Y. L. et al., Kg4sl: knowledge graph neural network for synthetic lethality pre- diction in human cancers, Bioinformatics 37 (2021).doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btab271

    2021 doi

  89. [103]

    Georgantas, J

    C. Georgantas, J. Richiardi, Multi-view omics translation with multiplex graph neural networks, in: Companion Proceedings of the Web Conference 2022, 2022, p. 1030–1036. doi:10.1145/3487553.3524714

    2022

  90. [104]

    H. Wen, J. Ding, W. Jin, Y. Wang, Y. Xie, J. Tang, Graph neural networks for multimodal single-cell data integration, in: Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowl- edge Discovery and Data Mining, 2022, p. 4153–4163.doi:10.1145/3534678.3539213

    2022

  91. [105]

    X. Jing, Y. Zhou, M. Shi, Dynamic graph neural network learning for temporal omics data prediction, IEEE Access 10 (2022) 116241–116252.doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3218027

    2022

  92. [106]

    W. Dong, M. Zhou, B. Han, F. Wang, Y. Li, scgraphetm: Graph-based deep learning approach for unraveling cell type-specific gene regulatory networks from single-cell multi-omics data, bioRxiv (2025).doi:10.1101/2025.01.24.634773

    2025 doi

  93. [107]

    H. A. Zaki, Predicting cell type and extracting key genes using single cell multi-omics data and graph neural networks, Undergraduate honors thesis, Brown University (2022). URLhttps://cs.brown.edu/research/pubs/theses/ugrad/2022/zaki.hossam.pdf

    2022

  94. [108]

    T. N. Kipf, M. Welling, Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks (2017).arXiv:1609.02907. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1609.02907

    2017 arXiv

  95. [109]

    Veliˇ ckovi´ c, G

    P. Veliˇ ckovi´ c, G. Cucurull, A. Casanova, A. Romero, P. Li` o, Y. Bengio, Graph attention networks (2018).arXiv:1710.10903. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1710.10903

    2018 arXiv

  96. [110]

    V. P. Dwivedi, X. Bresson, A generalization of transformer networks to graphs (2021).arXiv: 2012.09699. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2012.09699 48

    2021 arXiv

  97. [111]

    W. L. Hamilton, R. Ying, J. Leskovec, Inductive representation learning on large graphs (2018).arXiv:1706.02216. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1706.02216

    2018 arXiv

  98. [112]

    J. Xiao, L. Yang, S. Wang, Graph isomorphism network for materials property prediction along with explainability analysis, Computational Materials Science 233 (2024) 112619.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2023.112619. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/p...

    2024

  99. [113]

    Nastorg, J.-M

    M. Nastorg, J.-M. Gratien, T. Faney, M. A. Bucci, G. Charpiat, M. Schoenauer, Multi-level gnn preconditioner for solving large scale problems (2024).arXiv:2402.08296. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2402.08296

    2024 arXiv

  100. [114]

    J. Han, J. Cen, L. Wu, Z. Li, X. Kong, R. Jiao, Z. Yu, T. Xu, F. Wu, Z. Wang, H. Xu, Z. Wei, D. Zhao, Y. Liu, Y. Rong, W. Huang, A survey of geometric graph neural networks: Data structures, models and applications (2025).arXiv:2403.00485. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2403.00485

    2025 arXiv

  101. [115]

    Y. Feng, H. You, Z. Zhang, R. Ji, Y. Gao, Hypergraph neural networks (2019).arXiv: 1809.09401. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1809.09401

    2019 arXiv

  102. [116]

    H. Ma, Y. Bian, Y. Rong, W. Huang, T. Xu, W. Xie, G. Ye, J. Huang, Multi-view graph neural networks for molecular property prediction (2020).arXiv:2005.13607. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2005.13607

    2020 arXiv

  103. [117]

    Tomczak, P

    K. Tomczak, P. Czerwi´ nska, M. Wiznerowicz, The cancer genome atlas (tcga): an immea- surable source of knowledge, Contemporary Oncology/Wsp´ o lczesna Onkologia (2015) 68– 77doi:10.5114/wo.2014.47136

    2015

  104. [118]

    Szklarczyk, R

    D. Szklarczyk, R. Kirsch, M. Koutrouli, K. Nastou, F. Mehryary, R. Hachilif, A. L. Gable, T. Fang, N. T. Doncheva, S. Pyysalo, P. Bork, L. J. Jensen, C. von Mering, The string database in 2023: protein–protein association networks and functional enrichment analyses for any seq...

    2023 doi

  105. [119]

    T. G. Consortium, F. Aguet, S. Anand, K. G. Ardlie, S. Gabriel, G. A. Getz, A. Graubert, K. Hadley, R. E. Handsaker, K. H. Huang, S. Kashin, X. Li, D. G. MacArthur, S. R. Meier, J. L. Nedzel, D. T. Nguyen, A. V. Segr` e, E. Todres, B. Balliu, A. N. Barbeira, A. Battle, R. Bona...

    2020

  106. [120]

    Alasoo, Clinical traits impacting human tissue transcriptomes, Cell Genomics 3 (1), pub- lished: 2023/01/11 (2023).doi:10.1016/j.xgen.2022.100245

    K. Alasoo, Clinical traits impacting human tissue transcriptomes, Cell Genomics 3 (1), pub- lished: 2023/01/11 (2023).doi:10.1016/j.xgen.2022.100245. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.xgen.2022.100245

    2023

  107. [121]

    Kanehisa, S

    M. Kanehisa, S. Goto, S. Kawashima, A. Nakaya, The kegg databases at genomenet, Nucleic Acids Research 30 (1) (2002) 42–46.arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/nar/article-pdf/ 30/1/42/9901100/300042.pdf,doi:10.1093/nar/30.1.42. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1093/nar/30.1.42

    2002 doi

  108. [122]

    Sokolova, G

    M. Sokolova, G. Lapalme, A systematic analysis of performance measures for classification tasks, Information Processing and Management 45 (4) (2009) 427–437.doi:https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ipm.2009.03.002. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306457309000259

    2009 doi

  109. [123]

    Chinchor, MUC-4 evaluation metrics, in: Fourth Message Understanding Conference (MUC-4): Proceedings of a Conference Held in McLean, Virginia, June 16–18, 1992, 1992, pp

    N. Chinchor, MUC-4 evaluation metrics, in: Fourth Message Understanding Conference (MUC-4): Proceedings of a Conference Held in McLean, Virginia, June 16–18, 1992, 1992, pp. 22–29. URLhttps://aclanthology.org/M92-1002/

    1992

  110. [124]

    Forman, An extensive empirical study of feature selection metrics for text classification [j], Journal of Machine Learning Research - JMLR 3 (03 2003)

    G. Forman, An extensive empirical study of feature selection metrics for text classification [j], Journal of Machine Learning Research - JMLR 3 (03 2003)

    2003

  111. [125]

    Fawcett, An introduction to roc analysis, Pattern Recognition Letters 27 (8) (2006) 861– 874, rOC Analysis in Pattern Recognition.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2005

    T. Fawcett, An introduction to roc analysis, Pattern Recognition Letters 27 (8) (2006) 861– 874, rOC Analysis in Pattern Recognition.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2005. 10.010. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016786550500303X

    2006 doi

  112. [126]

    H. R. Sofaer, J. A. Hoeting, C. S. Jarnevich, The area under the precision-recall curve as a performance metric for rare binary events, Methods in Ecology and Evolution 10 (4) (2019) 565–577.doi:10.1111/2041-210X.13140. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13140 50

    2019 doi

  113. [127]

    Menche, A

    J. Menche, A. Sharma, M. Kitsak, S. D. Ghiassian, M. Vidal, J. Loscalzo, A.-L. Barab´ asi, Un- covering disease-disease relationships through the incomplete interactome, Science 347 (6224) (2015) 1257601.arXiv:https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1257601, doi:10.112...

    2015 doi

  114. [128]

    R. Ying, D. Bourgeois, J. You, M. Zitnik, J. Leskovec, Gnnexplainer: Generating explanations for graph neural networks (2019).arXiv:1903.03894. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1903.03894

    2019 arXiv

  115. [129]

    F. E. J. Harrell, K. L. Lee, D. B. Mark, Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors, Statistics in Medicine 15 (4) (1996) 361–387.doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19960229)15:4<361:: AID-SIM16...

    1996 doi

Pith tools

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