Back

Benchmarking Graph Neural Networks for Multi-Omics Cancer Subtyping using Methylation and Gene Expression Profiles

Schirmacher, J.; Maurer, M. C.; Metsch, J. M.; Ploesch, S.; Chereda, H.; Blumenthal, D. B.; Hauschild, A.-C.

2026-08-25 bioinformatics
10.64898/2026.08.21.745839 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Motivation: Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have gained increasing interest in the biomedical domain, as the integration of prior knowledge and deep neural networks has the potential to enhance insights into molecular processes and disease mechanisms. However, a comprehensive and systematic assessment of model architectures, data modalities, graph structures, and their performance for graph signal classification in the biomedical domain is yet to be performed. In order to close this gap, we conducted a benchmarking study on multiple GNNs on a Protein-Protein Interaction (PPI) network for Kidney Renal Clear Cell Carcinoma and Breast cancer subtype prediction, performing an in-depth investigation of architectures, incorporating skip connections and various data modalities. Results: While none of the GNNs outperforms the structure-agnostic Multi-Layer Perceptron baseline, all of them can handle bimodal data (gene methylation and expression) and offer the ability to gain explainability based on PPIs. We offer practical guidelines for applying GNNs to graph signal processing tasks specifically for cancer classification. Depending on the underlying dataset and PPI structure employed, models on different data modalities outperform others. Overall, we suggest using ChebNet, which tends to outperform the Graph Convolutional Network and the Graph Attention Network in cancer subtype prediction. We recommend using GNN architectures that employ a simple flattening readout layer, as they provide better classification performance and faster training time than those with global average pooling. Additionally, we tested residual connections, but they had only an insignificant impact on classification performance.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.