arXiv:1711.05859v2 [cs.CV] 20 Nov 2017

Hybrid Approach of Relation Network and Localized Graph Convolutional
Filtering for Breast Cancer Subtype Classification
Sungmin Rhee and Seokjun Seo

Sun Kim

Seoul National University
Computer Science and Engineering
{lars, dane2522}@snu.ac.kr

Seoul National University
Computer Science and Engineering
Interdisciplinary Program in Bioinformatics
sunkim.bioinfo@snu.ac.kr

Abstract
Network biology has been successfully used to help reveal
complex mechanisms of disease, especially cancer. On the
other hand, network biology requires in-depth knowledge to
construct disease-specific networks, but our current knowledge is very limited even with the recent advances in human
cancer biology. Deep learning has shown a great potential to
address the difficult situation like this. However, deep learning technologies conventionally use grid-like structured data,
thus application of deep learning technologies to the classification of human disease subtypes is yet to be explored. Recently, graph based deep learning techniques have emerged,
which becomes an opportunity to leverage analyses in network biology. In this paper, we proposed a hybrid model,
which integrates two key components 1) graph convolution
neural network (graph CNN) and 2) relation network (RN).
We utilize graph CNN as a component to learn expression
patterns of cooperative gene community, and RN as a component to learn associations between learned patterns. The
proposed model is applied to the PAM50 breast cancer subtype classification task, the standard breast cancer subtype
classification of clinical utility. In experiments of both subtype classification and patient survival analysis, our proposed
method achieved significantly better performances than existing methods. We believe that this work is an important starting point to realize the upcoming personalized medicine.

1

Introduction

Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers, especially
leading type of cancer in women with more than 1,300,000
cases and 450,000 deaths per year worldwide (Network and
others 2012). Breast cancer has multiple risk factors for development and proliferation including genetic change (Sineshaw et al. 2014), epigenetic change (Rhee et al. 2013), and
environmental factors like age (Nixon et al. 1994) or residual
environments (Sineshaw et al. 2014). Also, breast cancer is a
complex, multifactorial disease where the interplay between
these risk factors decide the phenotype of cancer such as
progression, development, or metastasis (Martin and Weber
2000). As a result, there are multiple scenarios of tumorigenesis. Thus, it is a challenging problem to determine how a
cancer cell is developed and progressed.
Characterizing mechanisms of a complex disease as a
whole is not possible. An effective approach is to define subtypes by dividing cancer into several categories according to

various criteria such as phenotype, molecular portraits, and
histopathology. For the molecular portrait-based subtype
scheme of breast cancer, numerous studies have made efforts
to build gene-expression based models based on differences
in molecular mechanisms among the patient cohort (Perou
et al. 2000; Herschkowitz et al. 2007; Paik et al. 2004;
Prat et al. 2010; Parker et al. 2009). Among the several
molecular properties based breast cancer subtypes, PAM50
(Parker et al. 2009) has become a standardized model with
the clinical utility to make diagnosis decisions in practice or
building a treatment plan for a patient. For instance of practical usage of subtype in cancer therapy, St. Gallen international expert consensus panel introduced a system for recommending adjuvant systemic therapy based on breast cancer subtype since 2011 (Goldhirsch et al. 2013). However,
despite the practical utility of breast cancer subtypes, they
are still remained to be suboptimal as the complex mechanism underlying breast cancer cell is not fully investigated.
The main technical issue in elucidating biological mechanisms of breast cancer is that innate relational and cooperative characteristic of genes should be considered. In any
specific biological context, multiple dysregulated genes derive phenotypic differences by mechanisms such as forming complexes, regulate each other, or affect signal transduction. To address the technical difficulties related to complex
associations, many previous studies utilized biological networks (Barabasi and Oltvai 2004; Barabási, Gulbahce, and
Loscalzo 2011; Cowen et al. 2017). Early biological network
studies tried to discover distinct patterns based on edge information (Barabasi and Oltvai 2004; Barabási, Gulbahce,
and Loscalzo 2011), and recent approaches rely on the common paradigm network propagation, which assumes that the
information is propagated to nearby nodes through the edges
(Cowen et al. 2017). However, network biology requires indepth knowledge to construct disease-specific networks, but
our current knowledge is very limited even with the recent
advances in human cancer biology.
Deep learning has shown a great potential to address the
difficult situation like this. However, application of deep
learning technologies to the classification of human disease
subtypes is not straightforward since deep learning technologies conventionally use grid-like structured data and they are
not designed to handle network data. Recently, graph based
deep learning techniques have emerged, which becomes an

opportunity to leverage analyses in network biology.
In this paper, we tried to advance network bioinformatics
by incorporating a novel hybrid method of relation network
(RN) and graph convolution neural network (graph CNN).
The concept of the problem is illustrated in Fig. 1. As traditional deep learning approaches assume input data with
Euclidean or grid-like structure, there have been limited attempt to incorporate deep learnings in network biology. To
overcome this issue, we incorporated and extended recent
deep learning methods. To sum up, given the prior knowledge of putative associating genes represented in a graph
structure, our proposed method is to capture localized patterns of associating genes with graph CNN, and then learn
the relation between these patterns by RN.
In summary, the main contributions of this work are as
follows:
• We proposed a novel hybrid approach composed of graph
CNN and RN. Our method is motivated by the fact that
relations between entities are traditionally modeled with
a graph structure. To the best of our knowledge, this work
is the first of its kind.
• We designed a model for biological networks. Since the
dimension of the conventional biological network is too
large, we applied fast graph convolution filtering method
that can scale up to the very large dimension. In addition,
we modified the relation network to fit in the task.
• We demonstrated the effectiveness of our approach by
classifying PAM50 breast cancer subtype on TCGA
dataset. Our model was able to achieve good performance
in both classification evaluation and capturing biological
characteristics such as survival hazard and subtype prognosis.
The article is organized as follows. In the next section, we
review previous studies related to our work. Then, our model
is described in Section 3. In Section 4, we demonstrate the
experimental result in both quantitative and qualitative perspectives.

2
2.1

Related Work

Deep learnings on graphs

Recent survey papers (Niepert, Ahmed, and Kutzkov 2016;
Bronstein et al. 2017) present comprehensive surveys on
graph deep learnings that recently emerge. In this section,
we review a representative selection of the previous studies
related to this work.
In the case of recurrent neural networks (RNN), there has
been an attempt (Scarselli et al. 2009) to combine the graph
structure with the neural network earlier than CNN. Graph
neural network (GNN) is one of such study, which is an extension of recursive neural network and random walk. The
representation of each node propagates through edges until
it reaches a stable equilibrium. Then it is used as the features
in classification and regression problems. This approach was
further extended to a method named gated graph sequence
neural network (GGS-NN), introducing gated recurrent unit
and modifying to output sequence (Li et al. 2015). Recently,

Figure 1: Conceptual illustration of our task.

Johnson proposed a method built upon GGS-NN by allowing graph-structured intermediate representations, as well as
graph-structured outputs (Johnson 2016).
CNN has been successful on domains with underlying grid-like structured data such as computer vision, natural language processing, audio analysis, and DNA sequences. Recently, several works extended CNN to more
general topologies like manifolds or graphs (Bruna et al.
2013; Henaff, Bruna, and LeCun 2015; Niepert, Ahmed,
and Kutzkov 2016; Defferrard, Bresson, and Vandergheynst
2016). Bruna et al. introduced a spectral formulation of
graph CNN (SCNN), which draws on the properties of convolutions in the Fourier domain (Bruna et al. 2013). They
extended the ideas to large-scale classification problems
(Henaff, Bruna, and LeCun 2015). Nevertheless, the method
still does not scale up well due to the computational cost of
O(n2 ) for matrix multiplication.
The method proposed by Defferrard, Bresson, and Vandergheynst leveraged on the spectral graph CNN (SCNN),
which is a key component of our approach. Computational
efficiency was improved by using Chebyshev approximation
technique. As a result, their method outperformed the existing SCNNs in terms of accuracy in their experiments.

2.2

Relation reasoning

As Google DeepMind’s team mentioned in their recent study
(Santoro et al. 2017), deductive reasoning methods innately
reason about relations of entities from training data, which
is also represented as relations (Quinlan 1990). However,
these approaches lack the ability to deal with fuzzy and
variational input data robustly (Harnad 1990). Meanwhile
in the statistical learning domain, DeepMind recently proposed a method named relational network as a general solution to relational reasoning in neural networks (Santoro
et al. 2017). The method focused on relational reasoning
with an easy-to-understand and generalizable network structure, which makes it easy to be modified or combined with
other methods. In addition, despite its simplicity in structure, it has demonstrated super-human performance in visual
question answering problem. Owing to the simplicity of RN
structure, we could easily modify and combine it with graph
CNN for the first time, and shows that the relational reasoning indeed helps to improve the performance of the proposed
breast cancer subtype classification task.

3

Methods

In this section, we describe the proposed method. Fig. 2 illustrates the overall workflow of the proposed method. The
first step (Fig. 2 A) of the method is the graph convolution
step to represent and capture localized patterns of the graph
nodes (genes). The second step (Fig. 2 B) is the relational
reasoning step. In this step, we built the model that can learn
the complex association between graph node groups (gene
sets) from the learned localized patterns of graph nodes
(genes) in the previous step. The next step is to merge the
representation of graph convolution layer and relation reasoning layer.
For the explanation of our method, we will denote data
elements of each sample p as xp ∈ Rn , and weighted graph
topology as G = (V, E, A), where V and E represent the
sets of vertices and edges, respectively. Also, we will use A
to denote the weighted adjacency matrix and N to denote
the number of vertices, i.e. |V |.

3.1

Localized pattern representation by graph
convolution neural network

For capturing localized patterns of data (gene expression
profile), we first mapped input data in the graph structure
and used graph CNN technique to find localized patterns of
the graph signal. Let xp ∈ Rn be the graph signal (or gene
expression) in the sample p. Then graph Laplacian matrix
L is used to find spectral localized patterns of xp under the
graph structure G. Laplacian matrix L of graph G is defined
as L = D − A where D is a weighted degree matrix of
graph G and A is a weighted adjacency matrix of graph G.
As graph Laplacian L is a kind of graph shift operator, it can
be used to represent diverse patterns of the graph in graph
signal processing. One of the usages of graph Laplacian is
that we can get the difference of signals between each node
and its neighboring nodes simply by multiplying L to the
graph signal x.

In addition to this basic usage, the graph convolution
of signal x is also defined with graph Laplacian. Let’s assume that L = U ΛU T is an eigenvalue decomposition
of graph Laplacian L where U = [u1 , ..., un ] is a matrix composed of eigenvectors {ul }nl=1 and Λ is a diagonal
matrix diag([λ1 , ..., λn ]) composed of eigenvalues {λl }nl=1 .
We can say that {ul }nl=1 is a complete set of orthonormal
eigenvectors as L is a symmetric positive semidefinite matrix (Defferrard, Bresson, and Vandergheynst 2016). Then
the graph Fourier transform is defined as x̂ = U T x and inverse graph Fourier transform is defined as x = U x̂ (Shuman et al. 2013).
Unlike in the classical signal processing domain, it is not
straightforward to define the convolution of two signals in
spectral graph domain. Thus, convolution theorem in equation 1 is borrowed from signal processing domain to define
graph convolution
(x ∗ y)(t) = F −1 (F (f )F (g))

(1)

where F and F −1 in the equation denotes Fourier and inverse Fourier transform for each, and x, y denotes two input
signals. As Fourier transform in graph spectral domain is
already defined, we can induce graph convolution by combining convolution theorem and graph Fourier transform as
following equation
x ∗G y = U ((U T x)

(U T y))

= U ((U T y)

(U T x))

= U y(Λ)U T x

(2)

where is the element-wise Hadamard product and y(Λ) ∈
Rn is a diagonal matrix diag([ŷ(λ1 ), ..., ŷ(λn )]). Since the
matrix U is determined by the topology of input graph and it
is invariant, only the matrix y(Λ) determines various forms
of convolution filters and acts as learnable parameters in
graph convolution. Among several graph convolution filters, the proposed method used polynomial parametrized filPK−1
k
ter yθ (Λ) =
k=0 θk Λ that can express localized signal patterns in K-hop neighboring nodes. However, evaluating polynomial parametrized filter requires very expensive computational complexity O(n2 ). To deal with this
circumstance, previous study (Hammond, Vandergheynst,
and Gribonval 2011) proposed an approximated polynomial named Chebyshev expansion. The Chebyshev polynomial Tk (x) of order k is recursively defined as Tk (x) =
2xTk−1 (x)−Tk−2 (x) with T0 = 1 and T1 = x. Then the filPK−1
ter can be approximated as yθ0 (Λ) = k=0 θk0 Tk (Λ̃) with
Λ̃ = 2Λ/λmax − In .
Going back to the graph convolution in equation 2, we can
now define the final graph convolution filter as
x ∗G y

θ0

=

K−1
X

θk0 Tk (L̃)

(3)

k=0

where L̃ = 2L/λmax − In is a rescaled graph Laplacian.
The equation 3 can be easily induced from the observation

Figure 2: Overview of the proposed method.
(U ΛU T )k = U Λk U T . Note that the entire filtering operation only requires O(K|E|) and is fully differentiable,
which makes it feasible to be learned by backpropagation
algorithm (Defferrard, Bresson, and Vandergheynst 2016).
Convolutioned graph signal is further pooled with neighboring nodes identified by Graclus algorithm (Dhillon,
Guan, and Kulis 2007) as proposed in the previous study
(Defferrard, Bresson, and Vandergheynst 2016). There are
several pooling strategies in neural network such as max
pooling and average pooling. Empirically, the average pooling performed best in our experiments. Therefore, we used
average pooling in the proposed method.

3.2

Learning relation between graph entities
using relation network

To reason about association between graph nodes, we used
relation network (RN), originally defined as
X
RN (O) = fφ (
gθ (oi , oj ))
(4)
i,j

in the previous study (Santoro et al. 2017) where the input is a set of objects O = {o1 , o2 , ..., on }, oi ∈ Rm . In
the original study by Santoro et al., multi-layer perceptron
(MLP) is used for function of f and g, and the parameters θ
and φ are synaptic weights of perceptrons. Also, unlike the
task in this paper, there exists a query for each of the input
samples, and each query is embedded to the vector q by an
LSTM. Then, Santoro
P et al. re-defined the RN architecture
as RN (O) = fφ ( i,j gθ (oi , oj , q)) so that it can process
the query in the neural network. This query embedding q can
work similarly as an attention mechanism. In other words,
query embedding has an ability to select object pairs that are

important for the classification task. Also, coordinate values of objects are used to define object pairs in the work of
Santoro et al. as it takes an image input, which has innate coordinate information. Therefore, even if all pairs of objects
are considered in the original RN, it was able to show a good
performance.
However, in our task only the information of object vectors are available in our task and the number of considering objects is larger than the original work. This lead to two
technical problems for relation reasoning, 1) object pairs that
are not relevant to solve the problem can interfere with learning, and 2) considering all pairs is not feasible as the number
of the objects is too large. Thus, we modified the relation
network to fit in our task. First, we sort the edges in the descending order of edge weights. Then top κ number of edges
are selected as input object pairs. Relations between two objects in each of the selected pairs are then inferred with g
function. Also, we used different functions for g and f . We
used MLP with separated parameters for each of object pairs
as g function and linear ensemble summation as f function.
Then the final object relation network is inferred as

RN (O) =

X

ij gθij (oi , oj )

(5)

i,j

where i,j is a learnable parameter that can be interpreted
as an attention of each object pairs for the task, oi ∈ Rm
is object embedding for each of graph nodes, and m is the
number of convolution filter in the last graph convolution
layer.

4
4.1

Figure 3: Illustration of h function.

3.3

Merging graph convolution layer and relation
network

The final output of the proposed model architecture is defined as
X
ŷ = sof tmax(h(xi ) +
ij gθij (oi , oj ))
(6)
i,j

to combine outputs from graph convolution layer and relation network, where h(xi ) is a composition of functions:
graph convolution, pooling, and fully connected layer.
To be more specific about h, we summarize the procedure of h as follows. First, the input signal xi is normalized by a batch normalization method (Ioffe and Szegedy
2015) to make learning process stable since it has large absolute value and variance. Then, the normalized input signal
is filtered by a graph convolution layer as defined in equation 3. Next, the convoluted signal is normalized through a
batch normalization method so that the learning process is
accelerated and learning parameters can have regularization
effect. Then, ReLU activation function is used, defined as
σ(x) = max(0, x). After the activation, average pooling is
applied. We named the procedure from graph convolution
filtering to average pooling as graph convolution layer. After two graph convolution layer, a final feature map is used
as an input of fully connected layer. Next, the output of final
fully connected layer is the output of function h. Function h
is illustrated in Fig. 3.
Output at the last graph convolution layer was represented
as feature maps that were directly input to the relation network. Then cross-entropy between ŷ in equation 6 and classification label is used as the final objective function. Xavier
initialization technique (Glorot and Bengio 2010) is used for
initialization of all parameters, and for parameter optimization, Adam (Kingma and Ba 2014) optimization and minibatch training is used.
Hyperparameters for learning procedure is determined as
follows. Two graph convolution layer were used. Each layer
has 32 convolution filters. K of the first layer is 10 and second layer is 2. Pooling size is 2 for both of the layers. Two
fully connected layers are used with 1024, 512 hidden nodes
for each. For the relation network, top 1000 edges were selected. MLPs for g function have 2 layers with 128, 128
hidden nodes for each. We set hyperparameters for training
procedure as mini-batch size = 100, learning rate = 1e-3, L2
regularization coefficient = 5e-4.

Results and Discussion

Dataset

We applied the proposed method on dataset of human breast
cancer patient samples. RNA-seq based expression profiles
of genes are extracted from TCGA breast cancer level 3 data
(Prat Aparicio 2012). There are 57,292 genes in the original
expression profile, and we excluded genes that were not expressed and further selected 4,303 genes in the cancer hallmark gene sets (Liberzon et al. 2015) to utilize only genes
that are relevant with tumor.
For the classification label of the patient, PAM50 molecular subtypes were used. PAM50 is the most commonly used
breast cancer subtype scheme. The subtype includes Luminal A, Luminal B, Basal-like, and HER2. Luminal subtype
cancer cells are mostly grown from inner (luminal) cells of
mammary ducts and known to have better prognoses than
other subtypes. Compared to Luminal A however, Luminal
B subtype tumors tend to have poorer prognosis factors like
higher tumor grade, larger tumor size, and lymph node involvement. Basal-like cancer cells are mostly grown from
outer (basal) cells of mammary ducts and known to have
worst prognoses and survival rates. HER2 subtype had its
name since most HER2 subtype tumors are HER2-positive.
HER2 subtype tumors tend to have poorer prognoses than
luminal subtype tumors. In our study, 367 Luminal A, 295
Luminal B, 165 HER2, and 254 Basal-like patient samples
were used for the experiment.
To reflect interactions among genes, gene expression values were mapped to a biological graph. For the topology of
the graph, we used STRING protein-protein interaction network (Szklarczyk et al. 2014). STRING is a curated database
of putatively associating genes from multiple pieces of evidence like biological experiments, text-mined literature information, computational prediction, etc. STRING is one of
the most widely used networks in network bioinformatics
(Han 2008).

4.2

Breast cancer subtype classification

For true breast cancer subtype label Y = {y1 , ..., yP } and
predicted label Ŷ = {ŷ1 , , , ŷP } of P number of patients,
the accuracy is calculated as
Accuracy(Y, Ŷ ) =

P
1 X
I(yp = ŷp )
P p=1

(7)

where I is an indicator function. The accuracies were measured by a monte-carlo cross validation experiment (Dubitzky, Granzow, and Berrar 2007). We repeatedly sampled
10% of patients as a validation set and used remaining 90%
of patients as a training set. For each of data splits, the proposed model was fit to training set and accuracy was assessed using validation set. The accuracies were averaged
over data splits.

4.3

Comparison of classification performance

Table 1 lists accuracies of the proposed model and comparing methods. Peak accuracies during learning processes

Table 1: Performance comparison of the methods on PAM50
breast cancer subtype classification. GCNN denotes graph
convolution neural network that has identical hyperparameters with the proposed method. GCNN + RN denotes simple
integration of GCNN and vanilla relation network.
Methods
Peak
Final
accuracy accuracy
Proposed Method
87.03% 84.08%
GCNN + RN
67.05%
61.37%
GCNN
85.99%
82.93%
SVM
78.39%
Multinomial Naive Bayes
75.78%
Random Forest
79.60%

were listed for top 3 methods in the table, and final accuracies after learning are listed for all of the comparing methods. We can see that the proposed method performs best.
Also, the simple integration of graph CNN and vanilla RN
(GCNN+RN) showed the worst performance. We used identical hyperparameters and model structure with the proposed
method for GCNN+RN, except that equation 5 is replaced
with equation 4. We believe that GCNN+RN performs poor
since, as we described in the method section, the original
RN gets query encodings and coordinate values as inputs,
that can work as a clue for relevant object selection. However, as there is no coordinate value or query in our task, we
believe that changes in our hybrid approach is efficient to
make an increase in performance.

4.4

Consistency of tSNE visualization and
PAM50 subtype prognosis

To qualitatively study whether the learned representation can
express the biological characteristic of the patients, tSNE
plot (Maaten and Hinton 2008) of the last convolution feature map is drawn (Fig. 4). Only the representation vectors
of the objects, which were inputs of relation network were
used to plot. We can see distinct patterns between four subtype patients in the plot. However, the distinction between
subtypes was not clear than typical examples e.g., tSNE plot
of MNIST handwritten digits. We believe that this shows the
complexity of the problem we are solving in the task. As we
described earlier, the problem has higher input dimension
and association between each feature should be considered.
More interestingly, we can see that the order of subtypes
in the tSNE plot is identical to the order of prognosis of
breast cancer subtypes. It is a well-known fact in the breast
cancer clinical domain that Basal-like subtype has the worst
prognosis, followed by HER2, Luminal B, and Luminal
A. Especially, Basal-like subtype is known to have distinctive molecular characteristics from other subtypes (Bertucci,
Finetti, and Birnbaum 2012), which is also represented in
Fig. 4. All of these patterns do not appear in the tSNE plot
with raw gene expression (Supplementary Figure). Thus, we
can say that the proposed method successfully learn the la-

Figure 4: tSNE visualization of graph convolution feature
map.
tent molecular properties in the expression profile of the patient samples.

4.5

Survival analysis

To further evaluate the ability of the model to comprehend
characteristics of molecular subtypes, we performed survival analysis. We clustered the patients into two groups
based on raw gene expression values and feature map data
at the last graph convolution layer with dimensions reduced.
Agglomerative hierarchical clustering with Ward’s criterion
(Ward Jr 1963) was used for clustering and tSNE was used
for dimension reduction. Then Kaplan-meier plots (KM
plot) (Kaplan and Meier 1958) drawn for each of two clustering results are seen in Fig. 5. KM plot is standard analysis
using non-parametric statistics to measure hazard ratio of
each group. In medical science, KM plot is often used to analyze the effectiveness of treatment by comparing KM plot
of treated and non-treated patient groups.
The plot generated by feature map values (Bottom of Fig.
5) shows that the patients were successfully divided into two
subgroups that have distinct survival patterns with a p-value
smaller than 0.05, while the plot with raw expression value
(Top of Fig. 5) failed. This is an interesting result as it shows
that the model could simultaneously learn the phenotypic information such as prognosis of the patient while performing
the classification task, which is not directly related with the
information.

5

Conclusion

In this study, we show that hybrid approach of relation network and graph convolution neural network can learn the

Figure 5: Kaplan meier survival plot of patients. Top plot is
drawn with the patient clusters with raw gene expression and
bottom plot is drawn with the patient clusters with learned
convolution filter.
complex molecular mechanisms underlying breast cancer
cells. The proposed method is designed to perceive cooperative patterns of genes and their associations. We observed
that the method is successful to capture molecular characteristics of breast cancer in both quantitative and qualitative
evaluation. We anticipate that our approach could extend the
territory of both network bioinformatics and deep learnings.
One important future work of the method is to extend the
model to manage multiple heterogeneous data sources like
sRNA sequencing, DNA methylation, as well as gene expression data. To do this, we plan to extend the model by incorporating other techniques like multi-view learning and/or
transfer learning.

References
[Barabasi and Oltvai 2004] Barabasi, A.-L., and Oltvai,
Z. N. 2004. Network biology: understanding the cell’s
functional organization. Nature reviews. Genetics 5(2):101.
[Barabási, Gulbahce, and Loscalzo 2011] Barabási, A.-L.;
Gulbahce, N.; and Loscalzo, J. 2011. Network medicine: a

network-based approach to human disease. Nature reviews.
Genetics 12(1):56.
[Bertucci, Finetti, and Birnbaum 2012] Bertucci, F.; Finetti,
P.; and Birnbaum, D. 2012. Basal breast cancer: a complex
and deadly molecular subtype. Current molecular medicine
12(1):96–110.
[Bronstein et al. 2017] Bronstein, M. M.; Bruna, J.; LeCun,
Y.; Szlam, A.; and Vandergheynst, P. 2017. Geometric deep
learning: going beyond euclidean data. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 34(4):18–42.
[Bruna et al. 2013] Bruna, J.; Zaremba, W.; Szlam, A.; and
LeCun, Y. 2013. Spectral networks and locally connected
networks on graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6203.
[Cowen et al. 2017] Cowen, L.; Ideker, T.; Raphael, B. J.;
and Sharan, R. 2017. Network propagation: a universal amplifier of genetic associations. Nature Reviews Genetics.
[Defferrard, Bresson, and Vandergheynst 2016] Defferrard,
M.; Bresson, X.; and Vandergheynst, P. 2016. Convolutional neural networks on graphs with fast localized spectral
filtering. In Advances in Neural Information Processing
Systems, 3844–3852.
[Dhillon, Guan, and Kulis 2007] Dhillon, I. S.; Guan, Y.; and
Kulis, B. 2007. Weighted graph cuts without eigenvectors a
multilevel approach. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis
and machine intelligence 29(11).
[Dubitzky, Granzow, and Berrar 2007] Dubitzky,
W.;
Granzow, M.; and Berrar, D. P. 2007. Fundamentals of data
mining in genomics and proteomics. Springer Science &
Business Media.
[Glorot and Bengio 2010] Glorot, X., and Bengio, Y. 2010.
Understanding the difficulty of training deep feedforward
neural networks. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics,
249–256.
[Goldhirsch et al. 2013] Goldhirsch, A.; Winer, E. P.; Coates,
A.; Gelber, R.; Piccart-Gebhart, M.; Thürlimann, B.; Senn,
H.-J.; members, P.; Albain, K. S.; André, F.; et al. 2013. Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer:
highlights of the st gallen international expert consensus on
the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2013. Annals of
oncology 24(9):2206–2223.
[Hammond, Vandergheynst, and Gribonval 2011]
Hammond, D. K.; Vandergheynst, P.; and Gribonval,
R. 2011. Wavelets on graphs via spectral graph theory.
Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis
30(2):129–150.
[Han 2008] Han, J.-D. J. 2008. Understanding biological functions through molecular networks. Cell research
18(2):224.
[Harnad 1990] Harnad, S. 1990. The symbol grounding
problem. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 42(1-3):335–
346.
[Henaff, Bruna, and LeCun 2015] Henaff, M.; Bruna, J.; and
LeCun, Y. 2015. Deep convolutional networks on graphstructured data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.05163.

[Herschkowitz et al. 2007] Herschkowitz, J. I.; Simin, K.;
Weigman, V. J.; Mikaelian, I.; Usary, J.; Hu, Z.; Rasmussen,
K. E.; Jones, L. P.; Assefnia, S.; Chandrasekharan, S.; et al.
2007. Identification of conserved gene expression features
between murine mammary carcinoma models and human
breast tumors. Genome biology 8(5):R76.
[Ioffe and Szegedy 2015] Ioffe, S., and Szegedy, C. 2015.
Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by
reducing internal covariate shift. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 448–456.
[Johnson 2016] Johnson, D. D. 2016. Learning graphical
state transitions.
[Kaplan and Meier 1958] Kaplan, E. L., and Meier, P.
1958. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. Journal of the American statistical association
53(282):457–481.
[Kingma and Ba 2014] Kingma, D., and Ba, J. 2014. Adam:
A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1412.6980.
[Li et al. 2015] Li, Y.; Tarlow, D.; Brockschmidt, M.; and
Zemel, R. 2015. Gated graph sequence neural networks.
arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.05493.
[Liberzon et al. 2015] Liberzon, A.; Birger, C.; Thorvaldsdóttir, H.; Ghandi, M.; Mesirov, J. P.; and Tamayo, P.
2015. The molecular signatures database hallmark gene set
collection. Cell systems 1(6):417–425.
[Maaten and Hinton 2008] Maaten, L. v. d., and Hinton, G.
2008. Visualizing data using t-sne. Journal of Machine
Learning Research 9(Nov):2579–2605.
[Martin and Weber 2000] Martin, A.-M., and Weber, B. L.
2000. Genetic and hormonal risk factors in breast cancer.
Journal of the National Cancer Institute 92(14):1126–1135.
[Network and others 2012] Network, C. G. A., et al. 2012.
Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumors.
Nature 490(7418):61.
[Niepert, Ahmed, and Kutzkov 2016] Niepert, M.; Ahmed,
M.; and Kutzkov, K. 2016. Learning convolutional neural
networks for graphs. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2014–2023.
[Nixon et al. 1994] Nixon, A. J.; Neuberg, D.; Hayes, D. F.;
Gelman, R.; Connolly, J. L.; Schnitt, S.; Abner, A.; Recht,
A.; Vicini, F.; and Harris, J. R. 1994. Relationship of patient
age to pathologic features of the tumor and prognosis for
patients with stage i or ii breast cancer. Journal of Clinical
Oncology 12(5):888–894.
[Paik et al. 2004] Paik, S.; Shak, S.; Tang, G.; Kim, C.;
Baker, J.; Cronin, M.; Baehner, F. L.; Walker, M. G.; Watson, D.; Park, T.; et al. 2004. A multigene assay to predict
recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 351(27):2817–2826.
[Parker et al. 2009] Parker, J. S.; Mullins, M.; Cheang,
M. C.; Leung, S.; Voduc, D.; Vickery, T.; Davies, S.; Fauron,
C.; He, X.; Hu, Z.; et al. 2009. Supervised risk predictor of
breast cancer based on intrinsic subtypes. Journal of clinical
oncology 27(8):1160–1167.

[Perou et al. 2000] Perou, C. M.; Sorlie, T.; Eisen, M. B.;
Van De Rijn, M.; et al. 2000. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406(6797):747.
[Prat Aparicio 2012] Prat Aparicio, A. 2012. Comprehensive
molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature, 2012,
vol. 490, num. 7418, p. 61-70.
[Prat et al. 2010] Prat, A.; Parker, J. S.; Karginova, O.; Fan,
C.; Livasy, C.; Herschkowitz, J. I.; He, X.; and Perou, C. M.
2010. Phenotypic and molecular characterization of the
claudin-low intrinsic subtype of breast cancer. Breast cancer
research 12(5):R68.
[Quinlan 1990] Quinlan, J. R. 1990. Learning logical definitions from relations. Machine learning 5(3):239–266.
[Rhee et al. 2013] Rhee, J.-K.; Kim, K.; Chae, H.; Evans, J.;
Yan, P.; Zhang, B.-T.; Gray, J.; Spellman, P.; Huang, T. H.M.; Nephew, K. P.; et al. 2013. Integrated analysis of
genome-wide dna methylation and gene expression profiles
in molecular subtypes of breast cancer. Nucleic acids research 41(18):8464–8474.
[Santoro et al. 2017] Santoro, A.; Raposo, D.; Barrett, D. G.;
Malinowski, M.; Pascanu, R.; Battaglia, P.; and Lillicrap, T.
2017. A simple neural network module for relational reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.01427.
[Scarselli et al. 2009] Scarselli, F.; Gori, M.; Tsoi, A. C.; Hagenbuchner, M.; and Monfardini, G. 2009. The graph neural network model. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks
20(1):61–80.
[Shuman et al. 2013] Shuman, D. I.; Narang, S. K.; Frossard,
P.; Ortega, A.; and Vandergheynst, P. 2013. The emerging field of signal processing on graphs: Extending highdimensional data analysis to networks and other irregular
domains. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 30(3):83–98.
[Sineshaw et al. 2014] Sineshaw, H. M.; Gaudet, M.; Ward,
E. M.; Flanders, W. D.; Desantis, C.; Lin, C. C.; and Jemal,
A. 2014. Association of race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and breast cancer subtypes in the national cancer data
base (2010–2011). Breast cancer research and treatment
145(3):753–763.
[Szklarczyk et al. 2014] Szklarczyk, D.; Franceschini, A.;
Wyder, S.; Forslund, K.; Heller, D.; Huerta-Cepas, J.; Simonovic, M.; Roth, A.; Santos, A.; Tsafou, K. P.; et al. 2014.
String v10: protein–protein interaction networks, integrated
over the tree of life. Nucleic acids research 43(D1):D447–
D452.
[Ward Jr 1963] Ward Jr, J. H. 1963. Hierarchical grouping
to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American
statistical association 58(301):236–244.

