Comparisons of Graph Neural Networks on Cancer Classification Leveraging a Joint of Phenotypic and Genetic Features

Clicks: 73
ID: 282826
2021
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #369 of 803 articles by views in arXiv

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 803 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Cancer is responsible for millions of deaths worldwide every year. Although significant progress hasbeen achieved in cancer medicine, many issues remain to be addressed for improving cancer therapy.Appropriate cancer patient stratification is the prerequisite for selecting appropriate treatment plan, ascancer patients are of known heterogeneous genetic make-ups and phenotypic differences. In thisstudy, built upon deep phenotypic characterizations extractable from Mayo Clinic electronic healthrecords (EHRs) and genetic test reports for a collection of cancer patients, we evaluated variousgraph neural networks (GNNs) leveraging a joint of phenotypic and genetic features for cancer typeclassification. Models were applied and fine-tuned on the Mayo Clinic cancer disease dataset. Theassessment was done through the reported accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 values as well as throughF1 scores based on the disease class. Per our evaluation results, GNNs on average outperformed thebaseline models with mean statistics always being higher that those of the baseline models (0.849 vs0.772 for accuracy, 0.858 vs 0.794 for precision, 0.843 vs 0.759 for recall, and 0.843 vs 0.855 for F1score). Among GNNs, ChebNet, GraphSAGE, and TAGCN showed the best performance, while GATshowed the worst. We applied and compared eight GNN models including AGNN, ChebNet, GAT,GCN, GIN, GraphSAGE, SGC, and TAGCN on the Mayo Clinic cancer disease dataset and assessedtheir performance as well as compared them with each other and with more conventional machinelearning models such as decision tree, gradient boosting, multi-layer perceptron, naive bayes, andrandom forest which we used as the baselines.
Reference Key
shen2021comparisons Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors David Oniani; Chen Wang; Yiqing Zhao; Andrew Wen; Hongfang Liu; Feichen Shen
Journal arXiv
Year 2021
DOI
DOI not found
URL
http://arxiv.org/abs/2101.05866v1
Keywords
q-bio.qm cs.lg

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.