Back

Branch-Wise Regularization for Heterogeneous GNN-Based MALDI-TOF AMR Prediction with Biomarker-Consensus Edges

Tsai, W.-Y.; Shih, Y.- T.; Chen, Y.- H.

2026-10-01 bioinformatics
10.64898/2026.09.24.754085 bioRxiv
Show abstract

This paper predicts antimicrobial resistance (AMR) from matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectra using DRIAMS, evaluated across 13 species-antibiotic datasets spanning sensitive/resistant imbalance ratios of 2.95:1 to 141.21:1 and raw spectral similarities of 0.9166-0.9946. We propose HetSAGE, a heterogeneous graph neural network (GNN) that combines full-spectrum "raw" edges with consensus "biomarker" edges derived from a 4-method feature-selection vote and applies per-edge-type dropout to regularize the two views separately. HetSAGE outperforms a plain multilayer perceptron (MLP) only when spectral similarity is high, consistent with oversmoothing effects reported in the broader GNN literature; the biomarker view converges on features close to independently established clinical markers: within {+/-}1 Da in Staphylococcus aureus, Oxacillin, and within range in Klebsiella pneumoniae, Meropenem, confirming it is not a black box. At the same time, per-edge-type dropout protects this smaller signal from dilution by regularization tuned for the noisier raw spectrum. Together, these results indicate that heterogeneous graph structure is not a universal win for MALDI-TOF AMR prediction but a conditional one, tied to a measurable property of the data, spectral similarity, rather than to architecture alone. This caveat is largely unaddressed in current DRIAMS-based GNN work. It provides a concrete signal for practitioners deciding when a graph model is worth the added complexity over a plain MLP.

Matching journals

The top 8 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.