GraphPINE: Graph importance propagation Neural Network for interpretable drug response prediction
Graph Neural Networks;Information Propagation;Drug Response Prediction;Explainability
Yes
No ethics review needed.
see above.
1. The manuscript addresses an important challenge in drug response prediction, highlighting the need for interpretable models in biomedical applications.

2. The integration of a knowledge graph to inform initial importance scores is a compelling approach that could enhance the interpretability of GNNs in drug response contexts.
The manuscript introduces GraphPINE, a Graph Neural Network (GNN) architecture aimed at enhancing interpretable drug response prediction. By leveraging prior biological knowledge through a knowledge graph with weighted edges, GraphPINE generates initial importance scores for nodes. The core innovation of the work is the Importance Propagation (IP) layer, which facilitates the propagation of node importance throughout the GNN, thereby promoting biological interpretability.
1. The methodology lacks novelty, as graph convolutional networks (GCN) and importance gating have been previously employed in similar contexts. The claim of novelty in this paper is undermined by the existence of other interpretable GNN-based methods for drug response prediction.

2. The ablation study is missing, and important baseline models are not included in the comparisons. The results show only marginal improvements over baseline models. For instance, ROC-AUC results show GraphPINE at 0.7955 compared to LightGBM at 0.7901, and PR-AUC results indicate 0.8939 vs 0.8917. These limited improvements weaken the overall impact of the claims.

3. The authors should provide comprehensive comparative analyses with and without drug-target interaction (DTI) information to demonstrate the importance of DTI. If predictive performance is comparable to models that exclude DTI, this raises questions about the effective utilization of the interaction information.
Yes
No ethics review needed.
My questions are related to the weak points I described. 

1) Can the authors better describe how the initial importance scores are obtained? This should be carefully described in the main paper and not in the Appendix.

2) If one used the initial importance scores to build a ranking of important nodes, would the outcome be different? If yes, then the methodology is effective; if no, probably the resutls are strongly affected by the initial importance scores.

3) Can the authors show how GAT, GT, and GINE perform when used as standalone strategies?
The main strengths of the paper are the following:

1) The work is original and relevant since it touches on an important aspect of GNNs (interpretability). Instead of relying on external explainers (which can deliver biased results), the authors propose a way to render GNN interpretable by using importance score propagation.

2) The domain of application is of extreme importance and relevance since it could help facilitate the detection of drug response/resistance, speeding up drug development and clinical trial phases.

3) The interpretability results are in line with the knowledge present in the literature.

4) Overall, the work is well-presented and also the Appendix provides useful information.

5) The authors provided an anonymous repository for reproducibility
The authors present GraphPINE, an interpretable GNN for drug response prediction. This methodology is able to deliver accurate results in terms of drug response prediction and, at the same time, provide interpretable outcomes in terms of important genes in the input graph. The authors properly described their methodology and compared their results with other methods. Finally, they show how it is possible to obtain and visualize interpretations for the predictions obtained.
The main weaknesses of the paper are the following:

1) It is not clear to me how the initial importance scores are assigned. The authors say these scores are obtained using the weights of the edges of a knowledge graph. How is this done? My doubt is that if we start from consolidated importance scores, the result's final propagated importance will present a bias since it will be strongly dependent on the initial weights.

2) It is not clear to me if the authors compared their results against GAT, GT, and GINE. They present three GraphPINE versions based on those architectures, but a direct comparison with them is not provided. I am puzzled since, in the Appendix, they describe the hyperparameter tuning for those models, but no result from them is present in Table 1.

3) The improvement brought by GraphPINE in terms of evaluation metrics is marginal with respect to other methods. In particular, it would be interesting to see how GAT, GT, and GINE perform when used as standalone techniques.
Yes
No ethics review needed.
1. What are the differences between drug response prediction and other drug-related prediction problems (e.g. drug-target interaction prediction and drug-drug interaction prediction)?
2. In section 2.2 “graph neural network in computational biology”, why molecular property prediction methods are not mentioned? GNN is widely used for molecular property prediction problems. 
3. Why the title of section 3.3.2 is “GraphPINE model”? It seems that the title and contents do not match. 
4. In Figure 2, 3, 4, why there are color bars on the right? There are only two types of colors for nodes in the figure.
1. This work utilizes different kinds of biomedical information to tackle drug response prediction, including gene-gene network, drug-target interaction and methylation. 
2. GraphPINE introduces Importance Propagation Layer, which is good at processing information from multi sources.
This work proposes GraphPINE to handle the problem of drug response prediction. GraphPINE uses a graph neural network incorporating biomedical prior knowledge from various resources. As for the model architecture, GraphPINE utilizes Graph Transformer and GAT to handle features, and designs Importance Propagation Layer to provide understandings for nodes and their relations. In experiments, GraphPINE outperforms other baseline methods and provide interpretable results for drug response prediction examples.
1. This work lacks a problem formulation for the problem of drug response prediction, which makes the input and the output of the learning problem unclear. 
2. The model architecture design is generally lack of novelty. For the feature processing part, Graph Transformer and GAT are existing works widely used. While the Importance Propagation Layer is similar to LSTM/GRU gates. 
3. In the experiment part, all baselines are learning methods proposed several years ago and none of them is specially designed for drug response prediction. This makes the experimental comparison unreasonable, as the drug response prediction methods introduced in related work part are not compared.
@inproceedings{
anonymous2024graphpine,
title={Graph{PINE}: Graph importance propagation Neural Network for interpretable drug response prediction},
author={Anonymous},
booktitle={Submitted to The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations},
year={2024},
url={https://openreview.net/forum?id=Cd25C59teq},
note={under review}
}
Explainability is necessary for tasks that require a clear reason for a given result such as finance or biomedical research. Recent explainability methodologies have focused on attention, gradient, and Shapley value methods. These do not handle data with strong associated prior knowledge and fail to constrain explainability results by relationships that may exist between predictive features.

We implemented GraphPINE, a graph neural network (GNN) architecture utilizing prior knowledge. The prior knowledge is taken from a knowledge graph with weighted edges used to then generate initial importances for the nodes of the GNN input graph. The main novel component of GraphPINE is an importance propagation (IP) layer that propagates node importance through the GNN with gating similar to Gated Recurrent Units (GRUs). In contrast to attention mechanisms in Graph Attention Networks, this places importance on nodes rather than edges. GraphPINE, therefore, provides understanding of both nodes and their relationships (given the GNN input graph). 

We apply GraphPINE to cancer drug response prediction using pharmacogenomics data (i.e., both drug screening and gene data collected by several assays) for ~5K gene nodes included in a gene-gene input graph. The gene-gene graph and drug-gene target annotations were taken from literature curated prior knowledge sources and weighted by the literature information. GraphPINE demonstrates competitive performance and achieves a PR-AUC of 0.894 and ROC-AUC of 0.796 across 952 drugs. To highlight the interpretability aspect of our work, we provide the ability to generate sub-graph visualizations with node importances. While our use case is related to biology, our work is generally applicable to tasks where information is separately known about feature relationships. Code: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/GraphPINE-40DE
I certify that there is no URL (e.g., github page) that could be used to find authors’ identity.
I acknowledge that I and all co-authors of this work have read and commit to adhering to the ICLR Code of Ethics.
Graph Neural Networks Information Propagation Drug Response Prediction Explainability
I certify that there is no acknowledgement section in this submission for double blind review.
/pdf/aed009f8279788ec4d3cda48fc70e07ac8d553c8.pdf
applications to physical sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.)
I understand the reciprocal reviewing requirement as described on https://iclr.cc/Conferences/2025/CallForPapers. If none of the authors are registered as a reviewer, it may result in a desk rejection at the discretion of the program chairs. To request an exception, please complete this form at https://forms.gle/Huojr6VjkFxiQsUp6.
I certify that this submission complies with the submission instructions as described on https://iclr.cc/Conferences/2025/AuthorGuide.
GraphPINE: Graph importance propagation Neural Network for interpretable drug response prediction
ICLR 2025 Conference Submission
ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission