SG-Fusion: A swin-transformer and graph convolution-based multi-modal deep neural network for glioma prognosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The integration of morphological attributes extracted from histopathological images and genomic data holds significant importance in advancing tumor diagnosis, prognosis, and grading. Histopathological images are acquired through microscopic examination of tissue slices, providing valuable insights into cellular structures and pathological features. On the other hand, genomic data provides information about tumor gene expression and functionality. The fusion of these two distinct data types is crucial for gaining a more comprehensive understanding of tumor characteristics and progression. In the past, many studies relied on single-modal approaches for tumor diagnosis. However, these approaches had limitations as they were unable to fully harness the information from multiple data sources. To address these limitations, researchers have turned to multi-modal methods that concurrently leverage both histopathological images and genomic data. These methods better capture the multifaceted nature of tumors and enhance diagnostic accuracy. Nonetheless, existing multi-modal methods have, to some extent, oversimplified the extraction processes for both modalities and the fusion process. In this study, we presented a dual-branch neural network, namely SG-Fusion. Specifically, for the histopathological modality, we utilize the Swin-Transformer structure to capture both local and global features and incorporate contrastive learning to encourage the model to discern commonalities and differences in the representation space. For the genomic modality, we developed a graph convolutional network based on gene functional and expression level similarities. Additionally, our model integrates a cross-attention module to enhance information interaction and employs divergence-based regularization to enhance the model's generalization performance. Validation conducted on glioma datasets from the Cancer Genome Atlas unequivocally demonstrates that our SG-Fusion model outperforms both single-modal methods and existing multi-modal approaches in both survival analysis and tumor grading.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".