PAGE-Net: Interpretable and Integrative Deep Learning for Survival Analysis Using Histopathological Images and Genomic Data
Open accessAbstract
The integration of multi-modal data, such as histopathological images and genomic data, is essential for understanding cancer heterogeneity and complexity for personalized treatments, as well as for enhancing survival predictions in cancer study. Histopathology, as a clinical gold-standard tool for diagnosis and prognosis in cancers, allows clinicians to make precise decisions on therapies, whereas high-throughput genomic data have been investigated to dissect the genetic mechanisms of cancers. We propose a biologically interpretable deep learning model (PAGE-Net) that integrates histopathological images and genomic data, not only to improve survival prediction, but also to identify genetic and histopathological patterns that cause different survival rates in patients. PAGE-Net consists of pathology/genome/demography-specific layers, each of which provides comprehensive biological interpretation. In particular, we propose a novel patch-wise texture-based convolutional neural network, with a patch aggregation strategy, to extract global survival-discriminative features, without manual annotation for the pathology-specific layers. We adapted the pathway-based sparse deep neural network, named Cox-PASNet, for the genome-specific layers. The proposed deep learning model was assessed with the histopathological images and the gene expression data of Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM) at The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA). PAGE-Net achieved a C-index of 0.702, which is higher than the results achieved with only histopathological images (0.509) and Cox-PASNet (0.640). More importantly, PAGE-Net can simultaneously identify histopathological and genomic prognostic factors associated with patients survivals. The source code of PAGE-Net is publicly available at https://github.com/DataX-JieHao/PAGE-Net.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 18 · Cited by 78
- Authors
- Hao, J., Kosaraju, S. C., Tsaku, N. Z., Song, D. H., & Kang, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas (US)
- Kennesaw State University (US)
- Gyeongsang National University Changwon Hospital (KR)
- Venue
- Biocomputing 2020
- Publisher
- WORLD SCIENTIFIC
- Published
- 2019-11-27
- Volume
- 25
- Pages
- 355-366
- OpenAlex
- W2991151034
- Cited by
- 78
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 5
- FWCI
- 3.06
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc
- Locations
- Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing (PSB) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Digital Scholarship - UNLV (University of Nevada Reno) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
- Keywords
- survival prediction, histopathological images, genomic data integration, multimodal fusion, cancer prognosis, glioblastoma, patch aggregation, sparse deep neural networks, explainable deep learning, prognostic factors
- MeSH terms
- Deep Learning, Glioblastoma, Humans, Survival Analysis, Computational Biology, Genomics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review