An integrative deep learning framework for classifying molecular subtypes of breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Classification of breast cancer subtypes using multi-omics profiles is a difficult problem since the data sets are high-dimensional and highly correlated. Deep neural network (DNN) learning has demonstrated advantages over traditional methods as it does not require any hand-crafted features, but rather automatically extract features from raw data and efficiently analyze high-dimensional and correlated data. We aim to develop an integrative deep learning framework for classifying molecular subtypes of breast cancer. We collect copy number alteration and gene expression data measured on the same breast cancer patients from the Molecular Taxonomy of Breast Cancer International Consortium. We propose a deep learning model to integrate the omics datasets for predicting their molecular subtypes. The performance of our proposed DNN model is compared with some baseline models. Furthermore, we evaluate the misclassification of the subtypes using the learned deep features and explore their usefulness for clustering the breast cancer patients. We demonstrate that our proposed integrative deep learning model is superior to other deep learning and non-deep learning based models. Particularly, we get the best prediction result among the deep learning-based integration models when we integrate the two data sources using the concatenation layer in the models without sharing the weights. Using the learned deep features, we identify 6 breast cancer subgroups and show that Her2-enriched samples can be classified into more than one tumor subtype. Overall, the integrated model show better performance than those trained on individual data sources.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".