Back

Hybrid Neural--Bayesian Belief Network Framework for Uncertainty-Aware Multimodal GBM Prediction

Jayme, A.; Heuveline, V.

2026-05-13 health informatics
10.64898/2026.05.10.26352710 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background and ObjectiveGlioblastoma outcome prediction remains difficult because clinically relevant signals are distributed across heterogeneous imaging and genomic modalities, cohorts are small, and conventional neural predictors do not quantify their own uncertainty. This study evaluates a hybrid neural-Bayesian belief network framework for uncertainty-aware multimodal glioblastoma prediction and examines how modality selection, model family, and structure-aware regularization affect predictive performance and confidence quality. MethodsThe framework was evaluated on the TCGA-GBM radiogenomic cohort using four input modalities (T1Gd, FLAIR, mRNA, and CNA), five model families, five structural-weight settings, and 15 view subsets. A secondary benchmark on the UCI Human Activity Recognition dataset was included to assess whether observed limitations were specific to the glioblastoma setting. ResultsCNA features consistently reduced performance in most multimodal settings, and selective fusion excluding CNA outperformed both the full four-view baseline and imaging-only alternatives. Model families showed clear differences in uncertainty behaviour: non-Bayesian families achieved the strongest predictive accuracy, whereas the Bayesian family achieved the lowest calibration error over a narrower confidence range. Bayesian belief network regularization produced consistent directional improvements without supporting reliable structure-discovery claims, as learned graph structures were not reproducible across folds. On the secondary bench-mark, the same framework achieved much higher predictive performance, indicating that the glioblastoma performance ceiling primarily reflects data limitations rather than an architectural constraint. ConclusionsIn small-sample radiogenomic prediction, modality choice is at least as important as model choice, and uncertainty quality differs substantially across uncertainty-aware model families. The proposed framework provides a practical basis for comparing accuracy, calibration, modality selection, and structure-aware regularization in multimodal biomedical prediction.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.1%
2
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.3%
3
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.7%
4
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 19%
6.3%
6
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.2%
7
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.9%
8
Human Brain Mapping
295 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.9%
50% of probability mass above
9
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.9%
10
NeuroImage: Clinical
132 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.5%
11
Neuro-Oncology Advances
24 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.5%
12
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
13
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 54%
1.7%
14
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
15
Neurophotonics
37 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
16
NMR in Biomedicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
17
Medical Image Analysis
33 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.3%
18
Medical Physics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
19
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.2%
20
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
21
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
45 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
22
Experimental Neurology
57 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
23
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.7%
24
Radiotherapy and Oncology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
25
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
26
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
27
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 26%
0.7%
28
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.6%