MULGONET: An interpretable neural network framework to integrate multi-omics data for cancer recurrence prediction and biomarker discovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multi-omics cancer data provides complementary views of tumorigenesis and progression. Technical challenges exist in integrating these heterogeneous data into deep learning models to better understand tumorigenesis and predict cancer recurrence. We herein propose a novel end-to-end deep learning method (MULGONET) for cancer recurrence prediction and biomarker discovery. First, MULGONET can effectively solve the curse of dimensionality and the lack of model interpretability in multi-omics data integration. Second, it explores interactions and regulatory relationships between genes and GO terms, thus providing biological insights. Benchmark results show that MULGONET outperforms other contemporary classification methods. It achieves AUPRs of 0.774 ± 0.015, 0.873 ± 0.003 and 0.702 ± 0.011 on the bladder, pancreatic and stomach cancer datasets, respectively. We also show that MULGONET can effectively identify prognostic genes and GO terms associated with cancer recurrence.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".