MuGNet: A graph-based framework for multi-tissue integration in computational pathology


Abstract

Computational pathology has seen significant advancements through the application of deep learning to Whole-Slide Images (WSIs). However, most existing models operate under a mono-tissue assumption, using only a single WSI to inform the prediction. This limitation is primarily driven by the structure of publicly available datasets, which rarely provide more than one slide per patient. Consequently, multi-tissue data integration remains underexplored in computational pathology, not due to a lack of clinical relevance but rather to a shortage of both public datasets and modeling strategies capable of handling multi-sample input. To address this gap, this study introduces MuGNet, a novel graph-based deep learning framework that enables patient-level prediction from a variable number of WSIs.

The MuGNet framework represents each patient as a network of tissue samples, with each WSI encoded as a node in a patient-specific graph. Edges are established to capture structural or biological relationships between tissues. A Graph Neural Network (GNN) with an attention-based message passing mechanism is then employed to process the patient graphs and generate patient-level predictions. MuGNet was evaluated on a private dataset of HGSC patients and investigated across three distinct prediction tasks to assess its robustness: one classification problem (Homologous Recombination Deficiency status prediction—HRD) and two regression problems (Overall Survival and Platinum Free Interval prediction—OS and PFI—).

MuGNet’s performance was compared against three state-of-the-art Multiple Instance Learning (MIL) models: ABMIL, DSMIL, and TransMIL. For the HRD status prediction task, MuGNet achieved an AUC of 0.7220±0.0739, which is approximately 6% higher than that of the most performant MIL model in this task. For the OS and PFI survival tasks, the model demonstrated an improvement in the C-index of approximately 10% over ABMIL and DSMIL, and up to 2% over TransMIL, highlighting its superior performance and robustness in handling multi-sample input. Beyond its predictive accuracy, MuGNet provides interpretability. The attention weights learned across the graph nodes allow for the identification of tissue sites that contribute most to the prediction, revealing that the model consistently prioritizes samples from metastasisrich regions, such as the omentum and lymph nodes.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].