TSEML: A task-specific embedding-based method for few-shot classification of cancer molecular subtypes

Chengyan Fang; Hui Cui; Ping Xuan; Qiangguo Jin; Ran Su; Rui Shi; Xikang Feng

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 32 references

TSEML: A task-specific embedding-based method for few-shot classification of cancer molecular subtypes

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that cancer molecular subtypes can be classified from one or five gene-expression samples by making the learned embedding task-specific, combining MAML's gradient inner loop with ProtoNet's nearest-centroid classifier…

desk verdict Useful benchmark and a reasonable MAML+ProtoNet hybrid, but the missing class-disjoint split in the evaluation leaves the few-shot generalization claim unproven. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13228 v3 pith:FZGVCGEI submitted 2024-12-17 q-bio.QM cs.AIcs.LG

Ran Su , Rui Shi , Hui Cui , Ping Xuan , Chengyan Fang , Xikang Feng , Qiangguo Jin This is my paper · ORCID

classification q-bio.QMcs.AIcs.LG

keywords few-shotlearningmeta-learningcancermolecularsubtypesgeneexpressionTCGAprototypicalnetworksMAMLtask-specificembeddings

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

Cancer molecular subtyping normally needs many labeled samples, yet some subtypes are rare, so the paper asks whether a few-shot learner can classify a subtype from just one or five examples. To study this, the authors build TCGA Few-Shot, a benchmark from TCGA gene-expression data covering 14 cancer molecular subtypes plus a 33-class cancer classification auxiliary task. They then propose TSEML, which combines MAML's task-level gradient updates with ProtoNet's nearest-centroid classifier so the embedding itself is adapted to each task before queries are classified. On this benchmark, TSEML reports the best accuracy, macro-F1, precision, and AUC among the compared methods in both 1-shot and 5-shot settings. If the result holds, task-specific embeddings would be a practical route to diagnosing rare cancer subtypes from very small sample sets.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the task-specific embedding defined by Eqs. (8)-(10): ProtoNet's embedding network computes class centroids and query scores, and before scoring a task the parameters are moved by one or more gradient steps on the support set, making the feature space adapt to each task while keeping ProtoNet's ability to handle an arbitrary number of classes. The companion dataset-generation pipeline builds training tasks by mixing cancer-type classification and cross-cancer subtype classification at equal probability, which the paper uses to share knowledge between the two tasks.

What would settle it

Re-run the reported ten-fold cross-validation while holding out entire cancer molecular subtypes from training, then test only on those held-out subtypes; if accuracy on never-seen subtypes falls to chance or to the level of a model trained on unrelated classes, the TCGA Few-Shot numbers reflect class overlap rather than few-shot generalization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the best few-shot representation for cancer subtypes is not a single global embedding but an embedding adapted to the task at hand. TSEML starts from ProtoNet's class-centroid classifier, which lets it handle any number of classes, and injects MAML's task-level gradient update: the embedding parameters are updated on the support set before centroids are computed and query items are scored. In the paper's experiments on TCGA Few-Shot, TSEML reaches 51.08% accuracy and 77.82% AUCm in 1-shot molecular subtype classification and 70.84% accuracy and 89.34% AUCm in 5-shot, outperforming MAML, ProtoNet, Meta-baseline, and the other compared methods on every reported metric in the 5-shot setting. The authors also show that the Euclidean distance metric performs better than cosine distance for the harder subtype-classification task.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the benchmark measures generalization to new tasks, which requires the classes used in testing to be absent from training; the paper does not explicitly state this class-level separation, and its testing tasks are described as encompassing all classes involved in the classification problems.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

TSEML can be applied to tasks with any number of test classes, because classification is based on nearest centroids rather than a fixed output head.
The reported 5-shot gains over ProtoNet (70.84% versus 64.51% accuracy) indicate that task-specific adaptation becomes more valuable as the support set grows.
The new TCGA Few-Shot benchmark gives the field a shared protocol for comparing few-shot cancer subtyping methods on public gene-expression data.
On cancer classification, where baseline methods are near ceiling, TSEML's advantage is small; the method's main benefit appears on the harder subtype-classification task.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct test the authors do not report is holding out entire cancer molecular subtypes from training and then testing on those unseen subtypes; without that class-level separation, the reported accuracies could reflect memorization of familiar classes rather than generalization to new ones.
The same task-specific embedding recipe could be carried over to other molecular data types, such as methylation arrays or copy-number profiles, where rare subtypes pose the same small-sample problem.
The Euclidean-versus-cosine ablation suggests the distance metric should itself be chosen or learned per task, since subtype classification is sensitive to it while cancer classification is not.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

The paper gives the community a genuinely useful new asset—a TCGA-derived few-shot benchmark for cancer molecular subtype classification—and the proposed TSEML is a clean, sensible composition of MAML's inner-loop adaptation with ProtoNet's centroid classification. The 5-shot subtype results are the most persuasive part: TSEML reaches 70.84% AC versus 64.51% for ProtoNet and 65.06% for Meta-Baseline, a gap that is unlikely to be pure noise even without significance tests. The 1-shot gains, by contrast, sit inside the reported standard deviations (51.08 ± 9.17 versus 49.15 ± 8.16 for ProtoNet), so the "consistently outperform" claim leans heavily on the 5-shot setting.

The main soft spot is the evaluation protocol. Section II.A.3 says testing tasks "encompass all classes involved" in both classification problems, while training tasks randomly sample the same cancer molecular subtypes. Nowhere is it stated that the classes used in testing are disjoint from those used in meta-training. Under the natural reading, this is not a few-shot generalization test to novel subtypes; it is low-sample classification of familiar subtypes. That is a legitimate but weaker claim, and it directly affects the benchmark's value. The fix is easy and the paper should be asked for it: state explicitly whether the ten-fold cross-validation separates at the class level, and if so, show the split; if not, rerun or rescope the claims.

There are also reporting problems in the ablation section. Table III contains unresolved 'TSEML-X' placeholders, and the text misreports the numbers: it says TSEML has higher AC than TSEML-C (51.08 vs 51.72) when the table shows the opposite, and cites an F1m of 48.2 for TSEML-C that does not appear anywhere. This is sloppy and undermines confidence in the rest of the numerics.

The method itself is not a conceptual leap—the equations are a direct combination of the two cited algorithms—but the dataset and the careful 5-shot comparison are worth a serious referee. The GitHub link is included, so the benchmark can be checked for reproducibility. I'd send it out, but I'd insist on a revised version that clears up the train/test class separation and fixes the ablation reporting. It is a solid extension, not a breakthrough, and it should be framed that way.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces TSEML, a task-specific embedding-based meta-learning framework that combines MAML and ProtoNet, and constructs a new benchmark dataset, TCGA Few-Shot, derived from TCGA gene expression data. The proposed method is evaluated on few-shot cancer molecular subtype classification and auxiliary cancer classification tasks against a range of deep learning and meta-learning baselines. The authors report that TSEML consistently outperforms existing methods in both 1-shot and 5-shot settings, with particularly large gains in 5-shot molecular subtype classification.

Significance. If the evaluation protocol is indeed a valid few-shot generalization test, the paper would make a useful contribution by providing a new benchmark for few-shot cancer subtype classification and demonstrating that a combination of MAML and ProtoNet can yield improvements in this domain. The dataset, TCGA Few-Shot, could serve as a resource for future work. However, the paper's central claims are weakened by an ambiguous evaluation protocol that may not test generalization to novel classes, and by the absence of statistical significance testing for the 1-shot results. The internal inconsistencies in the ablation study further reduce confidence in the reported findings.

major comments (3)

[Section II.A.3 and III.A.3] The evaluation protocol does not establish that test tasks use classes disjoint from those in meta-training. Section II.A.3 states that testing tasks 'encompass all classes involved in both cancer molecular subtype classification and cancer classification,' and Section III.A.3 describes ten-fold cross-validation without specifying any class-level split. Since the training task generator randomly samples the same molecular subtypes and cancer types, the natural reading is that all classes appear in both training and testing tasks. Under such a protocol, the reported accuracies may reflect memorization of familiar class centroids and identities rather than few-shot generalization to new subtypes. The authors must either describe and implement a class-disjoint split (e.g., holding out entire cancer types or subtypes during meta-training) or explicitly re-scope the claims to 'few-sample classification of known subtypes.' This is load-bearing for the paper's central claim of few-shot generalization.
[Section III.C.1 and Table I] The claim that TSEML 'consistently outperforms' other methods in the 1-shot setting is not statistically supported. For example, the mean accuracy of TSEML (51.08%) versus ProtoNet (49.15%) is well within the reported standard deviations (±9.17 and ±8.16, respectively), and no significance tests are provided for any comparison. The 5-shot results show larger mean gains, but even there the standard deviations are high (e.g., TSEML 70.84±13.32 vs ProtoNet 64.51±13.08). The authors should report significance tests (e.g., paired tests across the 500 evaluation tasks or across cross-validation folds) to substantiate the claimed improvements.
[Section III.D and Table III] The ablation study contains internal inconsistencies and appears to have missing data that undermine its reliability. The text states 'TSEML achieves slightly higher metrics overall compared to TSEML-C' but then reports that TSEML-C has a higher accuracy in the 1-shot setting (51.72% vs 51.08%). The text also quotes 'F1m at 48.2%' while Table III lists 42.82% for TSEML-C. Additionally, rows labeled 'TSEML-X' and 'TSEML-Y' appear in Table III with no values, suggesting a formatting or data-entry error. These issues must be corrected or clarified, as they directly affect the interpretation of which distance metric is more effective.

minor comments (5)

[Section III.C.1] The second paragraph states that ProtoNet records an AUCm of 75.67%, but Table I lists the value as 75.77%; please correct this discrepancy.
[Section III.D] The text refers to 'F1m at 48.2%' for TSEML-C in the 1-shot molecular subtype setting, but Table III lists 42.82%; the quoted value should be consistent with the table.
[Table III] The table includes rows for 'TSEML-X' and 'TSEML-Y' that contain no numerical results; these rows either need to be completed with the corresponding experimental values or removed, and the table should be carefully reformatted.
[Section II.A.1] The paper does not specify the exact 14 molecular subtypes and 33 cancer types used, nor the number of samples per class; providing this information in the main text would enhance reproducibility, rather than relying solely on the GitHub repository.
[Section III.A.2] The test tasks are described as 'P-way 1-shot 1-query and Q-way 5-shot 5-query,' with P and Q equal to the number of classes in the specific task, but the actual values of P and Q used for the reported results are not stated; please clarify these values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No derivation-level circularity: TSEML is an empirical MAML+ProtoNet combination evaluated against external baselines, so the reported results are not equivalent to their inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claim is an empirical accuracy comparison in Section III.C.1 (Table I) between TSEML and external baselines, not a derivation from first principles. Equations (8)-(10) define a concrete algorithm: MAML inner-loop gradient updates applied to ProtoNet centroid-based embeddings, with no parameter fitted to the test-task labels and no baseline result fed back into the method. The TCGA Few-Shot benchmark is independently constructed from public TCGA/Xena data, and the compared methods are all run under the same protocol. The one caveat is that Section II.A.3 states testing tasks 'encompass all classes involved' and no class-disjoint split between meta-training and meta-testing is described; if the intended claim were generalization to unseen molecular subtypes, that would be an evaluation-validity limitation rather than a circular step, because it does not by construction force TSEML's ranking over the baselines. No self-citation chain or uniqueness theorem is load-bearing. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on design choices such as task sampling probabilities, selected subtypes, and hyperparameters, plus the validity of TCGA expression data as a few-shot substrate. The main unexamined load-bearing assumption is that the evaluation protocol is a genuine few-shot generalization test. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)

meta-level learning rate = 1e-4
Hand-chosen hyperparameter (Section III.A.1); no independent validation sweep is reported.
task-level learning rate = 0.01
Hand-chosen hyperparameter controlling inner-loop adaptation (Section III.A.1).
inner-loop update count = 5 for training, 10 for testing
Hand-chosen; affects how task-specific the embedding becomes (Section III.A.1).
task batch size = 10
Hand-chosen (Section III.A.1).
training iterations = 1000
Hand-chosen; no early-stopping protocol stated (Section III.A.1).
number of selected molecular subtypes = 14
Subtypes with insufficient samples were excluded when constructing the benchmark (Section II.A.1); this post-hoc selection shapes task difficulty.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The TCGA/UCSC Xena gene-expression profiles, after log2 and mean normalization, provide a valid feature space for molecular subtype classification and cancer classification.
Used throughout as the substrate for all tasks; batch effects and platform integration issues are not modeled, though the paper cites these as motivation for a dedicated dataset (Section II.A.1).
ad hoc to paper Sampling N-way K-shot tasks with equal probability for cancer classification and molecular subtype classification captures a meaningful training distribution for the target few-shot molecular subtyping problem.
The equal-probability sampling and the rule to supplement insufficient subtypes from other cancers are design choices introduced for this benchmark, with no external justification (Section II.A.3).
domain assumption Auxiliary cancer classification knowledge transfers positively to molecular subtype classification.
The paper's first hypothesis (Section I) and the multi-task task generation rely on this transfer; no causal or mechanistic evidence is given.
standard math Gradient-based meta-learning with cross-entropy loss on support and query sets converges to a useful task-specific embedding (Eqs. 8-10).
Relies on standard backpropagation and optimization assumptions of MAML and ProtoNet; no convergence analysis is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TSEML: A task-specific embedding-based method for few-shot classification of cancer molecular subtypes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FZGVCGEI

@misc{pith2026241213228,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TSEML: A task-specific embedding-based method for few-shot classification of cancer molecular subtypes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FZGVCGEI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13228}
}

read the original abstract

Molecular subtyping of cancer is recognized as a critical and challenging upstream task for personalized therapy. Existing deep learning methods have achieved significant performance in this domain when abundant data samples are available. However, the acquisition of densely labeled samples for cancer molecular subtypes remains a significant challenge for conventional data-intensive deep learning approaches. In this work, we focus on the few-shot molecular subtype prediction problem in heterogeneous and small cancer datasets, aiming to enhance precise diagnosis and personalized treatment. We first construct a new few-shot dataset for cancer molecular subtype classification and auxiliary cancer classification, named TCGA Few-Shot, from existing publicly available datasets. To effectively leverage the relevant knowledge from both tasks, we introduce a task-specific embedding-based meta-learning framework (TSEML). TSEML leverages the synergistic strengths of a model-agnostic meta-learning (MAML) approach and a prototypical network (ProtoNet) to capture diverse and fine-grained features. Comparative experiments conducted on the TCGA Few-Shot dataset demonstrate that our TSEML framework achieves superior performance in addressing the problem of few-shot molecular subtype classification.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13228 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The training paradigm of the proposed TSEML. TSEML leverages the nearest feature centroid approach of ProtoNet and the gradient update inner [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Visual interpretation of high-level embeddings learned by different methods on TCGA Few-Shot. The red, blue, and green arrows highlight the ability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

[1]

Ushijima, S

T. Ushijima, S. J. Clark, P. Tan, Mapping genomic and epigenomic evolution in cancer ecosystems, Science 373 (6562) (2021) 1474–1479

work page 2021
[2]

Liang, Z

M. Liang, Z. Li, T. Chen, J. Zeng, Integrative data analysis of multi-platform cancer data with a multimodal deep learning approach, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics 12 (4) (2014) 928–937

work page 2014
[3]

Stingl, C

J. Stingl, C. Caldas, Molecular heterogeneity of breast carcinomas and the cancer stem cell hypothesis, Nature Reviews Cancer 7 (10) (2007) 791–799

work page 2007
[4]

X. Dai, T. Li, Z. Bai, Y . Yang, X. Liu, J. Zhan, B. Shi, Breast cancer intrinsic subtype classification, clinical use and future trends, American Journal of Cancer Research 5 (10) (2015) 2929

work page 2015
[5]

Z. Chen, Z. Yang, L. Zhu, G. Shi, K. Yue, T. Matsubara, S. Kanaya, M. Altaf-Ul-Amin, Cancer subtyping by improved transcriptomic fea- tures using vector quantized variational autoencoder, arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.09783 (2022)

work page Pith review arXiv 2022
[6]

M. K. Sarkar S, Firefly-SVM predictive model for breast cancer sub- group classification with clinicopathological parameters, Digital Health 9 (20552076231207203) (2023)

work page 2023
[7]

P. Sun, S. Fan, S. Li, Y . Zhao, C. Lu, K. C. Wong, X. Li, Automated exploitation of deep learning for cancer patient stratification across multiple types, Bioinformatics 39 (11) (2023) , btad654

work page 2023
[8]

D. Liu, T. Shi, J. A. DiDonato, J. D. Carpten, J. Zhu, Z.-H. Duan, Application of genetic algorithm/k-nearest neighbor method to the classification of renal cell carcinoma, in: Proceedings. 2004 IEEE Computational Systems Bioinformatics Conference, 2004. CSB 2004., IEEE, 2004, pp. 558–559

work page 2004

Show all 32 references

[9]

Zhong, Q

L. Zhong, Q. Meng, Y . Chen, L. Du, P. Wu, A laminar augmented cas- cading flexible neural forest model for classification of cancer subtypes based on gene expression data, BMC bioinformatics 22 (2021) 1–17

2021
[10]

Z. Yang, J. Shu, Y . Liang, D. Meng, Z. Xu, Select-protonet: Learn- ing to select for few-shot disease subtype prediction, arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.00792 (2020)

2020 arXiv
[11]

L. Yu, R. Li, X. Zeng, H. Wang, J. Jin, Y . Ge, R. Jiang, M. Xu, Few shot domain adaptation for in situ macromolecule structural classification in cryoelectron tomograms, Bioinformatics 37 (2) (2021) 185–191

2021
[12]

P. Chen, J. Wang, H. Lin, D. Zhao, Z. Yang, Few-shot biomedical named entity recognition via knowledge-guided instance generation and prompt contrastive learning, Bioinformatics 39 (8) (2023) btad496

2023
[13]

Q. Li, S. Wang, C.-C. Huang, M. Yu, J. Shao, Meta-analysis based variable selection for gene expression data, Biometrics 70 (4) (2014) 872–880

2014
[14]

J. J. Hughey, A. J. Butte, Robust meta-analysis of gene expression using the elastic net, Nucleic Acids Research 43 (12) (2015) e79–e79

2015
[15]

Y . L. Gao, Q. Qiao, J. Wang, S. S. Yuan, J. X. Liu, Biostd: A new tensor multi-view framework via combining tensor decomposition and strong complementarity constraint for analyzing cancer omics data, IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics (2023)

2023
[16]

Lazar, J

C. Lazar, J. Taminau, S. Meganck, D. Steenhoff, A. Coletta, C. Molter, V . de Schaetzen, R. Duque, H. Bersini, A. Nowe, A survey on filter techniques for feature selection in gene expression microarray analysis, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics...

2012
[17]

V . A, B. MR, V . J, R. T, S. KC, Advances and challenges in meta- learning: A technical review, Ph.D. thesis (2024)

2024
[18]

C. Finn, P. Abbeel, S. Levine, Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep networks, in: International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2017, pp. 1126–1135

2017
[19]

Snell, K

J. Snell, K. Swersky, R. Zemel, Prototypical networks for few-shot learning, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 (2017)

2017
[20]

J. M. Schmiedel, L. B. Carey, B. Lehner, Empirical mean-noise fitness landscapes reveal the fitness impact of gene expression noise, Nature Communications 10 (1) (2019) 3180

2019
[21]

Tomczak, P

K. Tomczak, P. Czerwi ´nska, M. Wiznerowicz, The cancer genome atlas (tcga): an immeasurable source of knowledge, Contemporary Oncology 19 (1A) (2015) A68

2015
[22]

Goldman, B

M. Goldman, B. Craft, M. Hastie, K. Repe ˇcka, F. McDade, A. Kamath, A. Banerjee, Y . Luo, D. Rogers, A. N. Brooks, et al., The ucsc xena platform for public and private cancer genomics data visualization and interpretation, biorxiv (2019) 326470

2019
[23]

Mostavi, Y .-C

M. Mostavi, Y .-C. Chiu, Y . Huang, Y . Chen, Convolutional neural network models for cancer type prediction based on gene expression, BMC Medical Genomics 13 (5) (2020) 1–13

2020
[24]

T. Ye, S. Li, Y . Zhang, Genomic pan-cancer classification using image- based deep learning, Computational and Structural Biotechnology Jour- nal 19 (2021) 835–846

2021
[25]

Hajieskandar, J

A. Hajieskandar, J. Mohammadzadeh, M. Khalilian, A. Najafi, Molec- ular cancer classification method on microarrays gene expression data using hybrid deep neural network and grey wolf algorithm, Journal of ambient intelligence and humanized computing (2023) 1–11

2023
[26]

Thakur, I

T. Thakur, I. Batra, A. Malik, D. Ghimire, S. H. Kim, A. S. Hosen, Rnn-cnn based cancer prediction model for gene expression, Journal of ambient intelligence and humanized computing 11 (2023) 131024– 131044

2023
[27]

Y . Chen, Z. Liu, H. Xu, T. Darrell, X. Wang, Meta-baseline: exploring simple meta-learning for few-shot learning, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2021, pp. 9062–9071

2021
[28]

Zhang, X

L. Zhang, X. Chen, T. Chen, Z. Wang, B. J. Mortazavi, Dynehr: Dynamic adaptation of models with data heterogeneity in electronic health records., IEEE EMBS International Conference on Biomedical and Health Informatics (BHI) (2021) 1–4

2021
[29]

Qingqing, D

Y . Qingqing, D. Bei, L. Xin, X. Yiwen, L. Dapeng, W. Longsheng, No-reference image quality assessment using meta-sgd, 2021 China Automation Congress (CAC). IEEE (2021) 3850–3855

2021
[30]

Israr ur, A

R. Israr ur, A. Waqar, J. Zahoor, A. Zulfiqar, X. Hui, S. Jie, Caml: Contextual augmented meta-learning for cold-start recommendation, Neurocomputing 533 (2023) 178–190

2023
[31]

Raghu, M

A. Raghu, M. Raghu, S. Bengio, O. Vinyals, Rapid learning or feature reuse? towards understanding the effectiveness of maml, arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.09157 (2019)

2019 arXiv
[32]

Van der Maaten, G

L. Van der Maaten, G. Hinton, Visualizing data using t-sne., Journal of Machine Learning Research 9 (11) (2008)

2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Ushijima, S

T. Ushijima, S. J. Clark, P. Tan, Mapping genomic and epigenomic evolution in cancer ecosystems, Science 373 (6562) (2021) 1474–1479

work page 2021

[2] [2]

Liang, Z

M. Liang, Z. Li, T. Chen, J. Zeng, Integrative data analysis of multi-platform cancer data with a multimodal deep learning approach, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics 12 (4) (2014) 928–937

work page 2014

[3] [3]

Stingl, C

J. Stingl, C. Caldas, Molecular heterogeneity of breast carcinomas and the cancer stem cell hypothesis, Nature Reviews Cancer 7 (10) (2007) 791–799

work page 2007

[4] [4]

X. Dai, T. Li, Z. Bai, Y . Yang, X. Liu, J. Zhan, B. Shi, Breast cancer intrinsic subtype classification, clinical use and future trends, American Journal of Cancer Research 5 (10) (2015) 2929

work page 2015

[5] [5]

Z. Chen, Z. Yang, L. Zhu, G. Shi, K. Yue, T. Matsubara, S. Kanaya, M. Altaf-Ul-Amin, Cancer subtyping by improved transcriptomic fea- tures using vector quantized variational autoencoder, arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.09783 (2022)

work page Pith review arXiv 2022

[6] [6]

M. K. Sarkar S, Firefly-SVM predictive model for breast cancer sub- group classification with clinicopathological parameters, Digital Health 9 (20552076231207203) (2023)

work page 2023

[7] [7]

P. Sun, S. Fan, S. Li, Y . Zhao, C. Lu, K. C. Wong, X. Li, Automated exploitation of deep learning for cancer patient stratification across multiple types, Bioinformatics 39 (11) (2023) , btad654

work page 2023

[8] [8]

D. Liu, T. Shi, J. A. DiDonato, J. D. Carpten, J. Zhu, Z.-H. Duan, Application of genetic algorithm/k-nearest neighbor method to the classification of renal cell carcinoma, in: Proceedings. 2004 IEEE Computational Systems Bioinformatics Conference, 2004. CSB 2004., IEEE, 2004, pp. 558–559

work page 2004