pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.20454 · v1 · pith:2BVPZOFCnew · submitted 2026-05-19 · ⚛️ physics.soc-ph · cs.SI· q-bio.QM

Sparse Contextual Coupling Reshapes Diffusion Geometry in Multilayer Hypergraphs

Hao Ding , Sanjukta Krishnagopal This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 06:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.soc-ph cs.SIq-bio.QM
keywords multilayer hypergraphsdiffusion distancesgene networksdisease-specific layerscommunity structurerandom walksfunctional enrichment
0
0 comments X

The pith

Sparse disease-specific gene layers under 2% of total genes substantially reshape diffusion distances and community structure in coupled multilayer hypergraphs.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces a diffusion framework on multilayer hypergraphs where layers couple through shared genes and random walks define multiscale distances between nodes. Applying this to gene networks pairs a dense MSigDB functional layer with sparse DGIdb drug-gene hypergraphs for four diseases and finds that the tiny disease layer still drives large shifts in distances and communities. These shifts trace to the high centrality of the disease-associated genes inside the functional network. Resulting communities remain stable under subsampling, enrich for disease-relevant functions such as signaling or immune processes, and expose disease similarities beyond direct gene overlap.

Core claim

Coupling a dense functional gene-set hypergraph to sparse disease-specific drug-gene hypergraphs through shared entities produces random-walk diffusion distances that change markedly when the small disease layer is added, because disease genes sit in central positions within the functional network; the resulting communities are stable and functionally coherent while revealing cross-disease relations not reducible to gene intersection.

What carries the argument

Coupling dense and sparse hypergraph layers through shared nodes so that random walks on the joint system induce multiscale diffusion distances whose geometry reflects the sparse contextual layer.

If this is right

  • Diffusion distances between genes shift in nonlocal ways even though the disease layer adds fewer than 2 percent of the nodes.
  • Community partitions reorganize to group genes by disease-relevant processes such as neurotransmission or immune response.
  • Pairwise disease comparisons uncover relations like breast cancer with schizophrenia that exceed direct gene overlap.
  • Communities stay stable when the input is subsampled and pass post-hoc functional enrichment checks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same coupling mechanism could be tested on other systems that overlay sparse context on dense background structure, such as citation networks with rare topical signals.
  • Centrality amplification suggests that identifying high-influence nodes in the background layer may predict where sparse data will produce the largest geometric effects.
  • Alternative hypergraph representations or weight schemes could be compared directly on the same gene data to isolate the contribution of layer topology.

Load-bearing premise

The observed large effect on diffusion geometry comes mainly from the central position of DGIdb genes inside the MSigDB network rather than from the particular coupling rule or external weight choices.

What would settle it

Randomizing the placement of the disease-associated genes inside the functional network while preserving layer sizes and coupling structure would remove the reported changes in diffusion distances and community partitions.

read the original abstract

Many complex systems combine dense background structure with sparse contextual information. We introduce a diffusion-based framework for analyzing how sparse condition-specific layers reshape diffusion geometry in multilayer hypergraphs. Each layer is represented as a weighted hypergraph, layers are coupled through shared entities, and random walks on the coupled system induce multiscale diffusion distances between nodes. We apply the framework to disease-conditioned gene networks by coupling a dense MSigDB functional gene-set layer to sparse disease-specific DGIdb drug-gene hypergraphs, with disease-associated drugs selected from DDDB and HumanNet-GSP used to define external gene weights. Across Bipolar Disorder, Schizophrenia, Leukemia, and Breast Cancer, the disease-specific layer contains less than 2 percent of genes in the coupled system, yet substantially changes diffusion distances and community structure. Centrality analysis suggests that this disproportionate effect arises because DGIdb-associated genes occupy influential positions in the MSigDB-derived functional network. The resulting diffusion-derived communities are stable under subsampling and show coherent post hoc functional enrichment, including signaling and neurotransmission categories in neuropsychiatric diseases and immune, translational, and metabolic categories in cancer-associated diseases. Community-level comparisons further reveal disease similarities not reducible to direct DGIdb gene overlap, including a Breast Cancer-Schizophrenia relationship consistent with recent biomedical evidence. These results show that sparse contextual layers can induce interpretable nonlocal changes in higher-order network geometry.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a diffusion-based framework for multilayer hypergraphs in which a dense MSigDB functional gene-set layer is coupled to sparse disease-specific DGIdb drug-gene hypergraphs via shared entities and external weights derived from DDDB and HumanNet-GSP. Random walks on the coupled system are used to compute multiscale diffusion distances; the central empirical claim is that the disease layer, containing less than 2% of genes, nonetheless induces substantial changes in these distances and in community structure for Bipolar Disorder, Schizophrenia, Leukemia, and Breast Cancer. The authors attribute the effect to the high centrality of DGIdb-associated genes within the MSigDB network and support the resulting communities with subsampling stability and post-hoc functional enrichment.

Significance. If the attribution to gene centrality rather than coupling artifacts is confirmed, the work supplies a reproducible method for quantifying how sparse contextual layers reshape higher-order diffusion geometry, with direct relevance to biological network analysis and the detection of non-local disease relationships.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods (coupling)] Methods section on layer coupling: the manuscript does not supply the explicit operator or parameter values used to combine the dense hypergraph with the sparse DGIdb layer and external weights; without these equations it is impossible to determine whether the reported distance changes are robust to the single free parameter (layer coupling strength) or to alternative weight-assignment schemes.
  2. [Results (centrality)] Results section on centrality analysis: the claim that DGIdb genes occupy influential positions and thereby drive the disproportionate effect is load-bearing, yet no null model is presented that randomizes disease-gene assignments while preserving node degree or centrality distributions in the MSigDB layer; such a control is required to separate the effect of the chosen genes from possible artifacts of the coupling operator itself.
  3. [Results (community comparisons)] Results section on community comparisons: the reported disease similarities (e.g., Breast Cancer–Schizophrenia) are interpreted as non-reducible to direct gene overlap, but the manuscript provides no baseline that applies the same coupling procedure to randomized sparse layers; this leaves open the possibility that the observed community shifts are generic to the coupling construction rather than specific to the biological centrality of the DGIdb genes.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and main text: the precise fraction of genes contributed by each disease layer should be stated with a table or explicit count rather than the summary phrase 'less than 2 percent'.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions: diffusion-distance matrices and community dendrograms require explicit scale bars and color legends to allow readers to judge the magnitude of the reported changes.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which identify key areas where additional methodological detail and controls will strengthen the manuscript. We address each major comment below and will incorporate the suggested revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods (coupling)] Methods section on layer coupling: the manuscript does not supply the explicit operator or parameter values used to combine the dense hypergraph with the sparse DGIdb layer and external weights; without these equations it is impossible to determine whether the reported distance changes are robust to the single free parameter (layer coupling strength) or to alternative weight-assignment schemes.

    Authors: We agree that the explicit coupling operator and parameter values are necessary for full reproducibility and robustness assessment. In the revised manuscript we will add the precise mathematical formulation of the layer-coupling operator, including how the transition matrix of the dense MSigDB hypergraph is modified by the sparse DGIdb layer through shared entities and the external weights derived from DDDB and HumanNet-GSP. We will also state the numerical value of the layer-coupling strength used throughout the study and include a sensitivity analysis across a range of coupling strengths together with a short discussion of alternative weight-assignment schemes. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results (centrality)] Results section on centrality analysis: the claim that DGIdb genes occupy influential positions and thereby drive the disproportionate effect is load-bearing, yet no null model is presented that randomizes disease-gene assignments while preserving node degree or centrality distributions in the MSigDB layer; such a control is required to separate the effect of the chosen genes from possible artifacts of the coupling operator itself.

    Authors: We acknowledge that a null model preserving degree and centrality distributions is required to strengthen the causal attribution to the biological centrality of the DGIdb genes. We will add this control in the revised Results section by generating randomized disease-gene assignments that maintain the same node-degree and centrality statistics within the MSigDB layer, then recomputing the diffusion-distance changes and comparing them against the observed effects. This will allow us to quantify how much of the reported reshaping is attributable to the specific influential positions of the actual DGIdb genes rather than to generic properties of the coupling operator. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results (community comparisons)] Results section on community comparisons: the reported disease similarities (e.g., Breast Cancer–Schizophrenia) are interpreted as non-reducible to direct gene overlap, but the manuscript provides no baseline that applies the same coupling procedure to randomized sparse layers; this leaves open the possibility that the observed community shifts are generic to the coupling construction rather than specific to the biological centrality of the DGIdb genes.

    Authors: We agree that a baseline using randomized sparse layers is needed to rule out generic coupling artifacts. In the revision we will apply the identical coupling procedure to randomized versions of the DGIdb hypergraphs that preserve sparsity, number of hyperedges, and overall degree sequence but reassign genes randomly. We will then compare the resulting community structures, diffusion distances, and inter-disease similarities (including the Breast Cancer–Schizophrenia relationship) against those obtained with the real biological data, thereby demonstrating that the observed patterns arise from the specific centrality and functional context of the DGIdb genes rather than from the coupling construction itself. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; framework and empirical claims are independent

full rationale

The paper introduces a diffusion framework on multilayer hypergraphs by defining weighted hypergraph layers coupled via shared entities and random walks to compute multiscale distances. This modeling choice is independent of the gene-network application. The central empirical claim—that a <2% sparse disease layer substantially alters distances and communities—is presented as an observed outcome on real data (MSigDB + DGIdb), supported by centrality analysis in the base MSigDB network, subsampling stability, and post-hoc functional enrichment. No derivation step reduces by construction to its inputs, no fitted parameters are relabeled as predictions, and no load-bearing self-citations or uniqueness theorems are invoked. The analysis is self-contained against external biological benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review limits visibility into explicit parameters; the approach rests on standard random-walk diffusion and hypergraph coupling assumptions without introducing new postulated entities.

free parameters (1)
  • layer coupling strength
    Must exist to combine dense and sparse layers but value and fitting procedure not stated in abstract.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Random walks on the coupled multilayer hypergraph produce meaningful multiscale diffusion distances between nodes
    Invoked as the core mechanism for measuring geometry changes.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5785 in / 1387 out tokens · 54509 ms · 2026-05-21T06:26:35.361472+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Alaluusua, K., Avrachenkov, K., Kumar, B. R. V . & Leskelä, L. (2023) Multilayer Hypergraph Clustering Using the Aggregate Similarity Matrix. InAlgorithms and Models for the Web Graph, volume 13894 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 83–98. Springer

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    & Petri, G

    Battiston, F., Cencetti, G., Iacopini, I., Latora, V ., Lucas, M., Patania, A., Young, J.-G. & Petri, G. (2020) Networks beyond pairwise interactions: Structure and dynamics.Physics Reports,874, 1–92

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    R., Gleich, D

    Benson, A. R., Gleich, D. F. & Leskovec, J. (2016) Higher-order organization of complex networks.Science, 353(6295), 163–166. 4.Berge, C. (1989)Hypergraphs: Combinatorics of Finite Sets. North-Holland

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    I., Alfaro-Bittner, K., Criado, R., Jalan, S

    Boccaletti, S., De Lellis, P., del Genio, C. I., Alfaro-Bittner, K., Criado, R., Jalan, S. & Romance, M. (2023) The structure and dynamics of networks with higher order interactions.Physics Reports,1018, 1–64

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    & Zylinska, L

    Boczek, T., Mackiewicz, J., Sobolczyk, M., Wawrzyniak, J., Lisek, M., Ferenc, B., Guo, F. & Zylinska, L. (2021) The Role of G Protein-Coupled Receptors (GPCRs) and Calcium Signaling in Schizophrenia. Focus on GPCRs Activated by Neurotransmitters and Chemokines.Cells,10(5), 1228

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    K., Walters, R

    Brainstorm Consortium, Anttila, V ., Bulik-Sullivan, B., Finucane, H. K., Walters, R. K., Bras, J., Duncan, L., Escott-Price, V ., Falcone, G. J., Gormley, P. et al. (2018) Analysis of shared heritability in common disorders of the brain.Science,360(6395), eaap8757

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    F., Kuzma, K., Morrissey, D., Cotto, K., Mardis, E

    Cannon, M., Stevenson, J., Stahl, K., Basu, R., Coffman, A., Kiwala, S., McMichael, J. F., Kuzma, K., Morrissey, D., Cotto, K., Mardis, E. R., Griffith, O. L., Griffith, M. & Wagner, A. H. (2023) DGIdb 5.0: rebuilding the drug–gene interaction database for precision medicine and drug discovery platforms.Nucleic Acids Research, 52(D1), D1227–D1235

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Cardno, A. G. & Owen, M. J. (2014) Genetic relationships between schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and schizoaf- fective disorder.Schizophrenia Bulletin,40(3), 504–515

    work page 2014

  9. [9]

    & Lambiotte, R

    Carletti, T., Fanelli, D. & Lambiotte, R. (2020) Random walks on hypergraphs.Physical Review E,101(2), 022308

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    Coifman, R. R. & Lafon, S. (2006) Diffusion maps.Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis,21(1), 5–30

    work page 2006

  11. [11]

    R., Lafon, S., Lee, A

    Coifman, R. R., Lafon, S., Lee, A. B., Maggioni, M., Nadler, B., Warner, F. & Zucker, S. W. (2005) Geometric diffusions as a tool for harmonic analysis and structure definition of data: Diffusion maps.Proceedings of the 28 of 29H. DING AND S. KRISHNAGOPAL National Academy of Sciences,102(21), 7426–7431

    work page 2005

  12. [12]

    Consortium, T. G. O., Aleksander, S. A., Balhoff, J., Carbon, S., Cherry, J. M., Drabkin, H. J., Ebert, D., Feuermann, M., Gaudet, P., Harris, N. L., Hill, D. P., Lee, R., Mi, H., Moxon, S., Mungall, C. J., Muruganugan, A., Mushayahama, T., Sternberg, P. W., Thomas, P. D., Van Auken, K., Ramsey, J., Siegele, D. A., Chisholm, R. L., Fey, P., Aspromonte, M....

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    Cowen, L., Ideker, T., Raphael, B. J. & Sharan, R. (2017) Network propagation: a universal amplifier of genetic associations.Nature Reviews Genetics,18(9), 551–562

    work page 2017

  14. [14]

    & Wang, J

    Deng, C., Li, H.-D., Zhang, L.-S., Liu, Y .-W., Li, Y . & Wang, J. (2024) Identifying new cancer genes based on the integration of annotated gene sets via hypergraph neural networks.bioRxiv

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    & Manji, H

    Du, J., Quiroz, J., Yuan, P., Zarate, C. & Manji, H. K. (2004) Bipolar disorder: involvement of signaling cascades and AMPA receptor trafficking at synapses.Neuron Glia Biology,1(3), 231–243

    work page 2004

  16. [16]

    & Rosvall, M

    Eriksson, A., Edler, D., Rojas, A., de Domenico, M. & Rosvall, M. (2021) How choosing random-walk model and network representation matters for flow-based community detection in hypergraphs.Communications Physics,4, 133

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    & Peltz, G

    Fang, Z., Liu, X. & Peltz, G. (2022) GSEApy: a comprehensive package for performing gene set enrichment analysis in Python.Bioinformatics

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    D., Praggastis, B., Eisfeld, A

    Feng, S., Heath, E., Jefferson, B., Joslyn, C., Kvinge, H., Mitchell, H. D., Praggastis, B., Eisfeld, A. J., Sims, A. C., Thackray, L. B. et al. (2021) Hypergraph models of biological networks to identify genes critical to pathogenic viral response.BMC bioinformatics,22(1), 287. 20.Fisher, R. A. (1932)Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Oliver and B...

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    J., Hecker, J., Hofmann, A., Maaser, A., Reinbold, C

    Forstner, A. J., Hecker, J., Hofmann, A., Maaser, A., Reinbold, C. S., Mühleisen, T. W. et al. (2017) Identification of shared risk loci and pathways for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.PLOS ONE,12(2), e0171595

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    Gillespie, M., Jassal, B., Stephan, R. et al. (2022) The Reactome pathway knowledgebase 2022 update.Nucleic Acids Research,50, D687–D692. 23.Hubert, L. & Arabie, P. (1985) Comparing partitions.Journal of Classification,2, 193–218

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    & O’Donnell, P

    Hussain, S., Kenigsberg, B., Danahey, K., Lee, Y ., Galecki, P., Ratain, M. & O’Donnell, P. (2016) Disease–Drug Database for Pharmacogenomic-Based Prescribing.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics,100(2), 179–190

    work page 2016

  22. [22]

    P., Denicourt, C

    Hwang, S. P., Denicourt, C. et al. (2024) The impact of ribosome biogenesis in cancer: from proliferation to metastasis.NAR Cancer,6(2), zcae017

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    & Liu, X

    Jin, S., Hong, Y ., Zeng, L., Jiang, Y ., Lin, Y ., Wei, L., Yu, Z., Zeng, X. & Liu, X. (2023) A general hypergraph learning algorithm for drug multi-task predictions in micro-to-macro biomedical networks.PLOS Computational Biology,19(11), e1011597

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    & Ahuja, G

    Kalra, S., Mittal, A., Gupta, K., Singhal, V ., Gupta, A., Mishra, T., Naidu, S., Sengupta, D. & Ahuja, G. (2020) Analysis of single-cell transcriptomes links enrichment of olfactory receptors with cancer cell differentiation status and prognosis.Communications Biology,3, 506

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    (2019) Toward understanding the origin and evolution of cellular organisms.Protein Science,28, 1947–1951

    Kanehisa, M. (2019) Toward understanding the origin and evolution of cellular organisms.Protein Science,28, 1947–1951

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    & Ishiguro-Watanabe, M

    Kanehisa, M., Furumichi, M., Sato, Y ., Matsuura, M. & Ishiguro-Watanabe, M. (2025) KEGG: biological systems database as a model of the real world.Nucleic Acids Research,53, D672–D677. SPARSE COUPLING IN MULTILAYER HYPERGRAPHS29 of 29

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    & Goto, S

    Kanehisa, M. & Goto, S. (2000) KEGG: Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes.Nucleic Acids Research,28, 27–30

    work page 2000

  28. [28]

    Kern, D. M. et al. (2024) Association between prolactin increasing antipsychotic use and breast cancer in women diagnosed with schizophrenia: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in Oncology,14, 1356640

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    Y ., Baek, S., Cha, J., Yang, S., Kim, E., Marcotte, E

    Kim, C. Y ., Baek, S., Cha, J., Yang, S., Kim, E., Marcotte, E. M., Hart, T. & Lee, I. (2021) HumanNet v3: an improved database of human gene networks for disease research.Nucleic Acids Research,50(D1), D632–D639

    work page 2021

  30. [30]

    & Kim, S

    Kim, Y ., Lee, J. & Kim, S. (2022) Network-Based Approaches for Disease-Gene Association Prediction.Interna- tional Journal of Molecular Sciences,23(13), 7411

    work page 2022

  31. [31]

    P., Moreno, Y

    Kivelä, M., Arenas, A., Barthelemy, M., Gleeson, J. P., Moreno, Y . & Porter, M. A. (2014) Multilayer networks. Journal of Complex Networks,2(3), 203–271

    work page 2014

  32. [32]

    V ., Jones, M

    Kuleshov, M. V ., Jones, M. R., Rouillard, A. D., Fernandez, N. F., Duan, Q., Wang, Z., Koplev, S., Jenkins, S. L., Jagodnik, K. M., Lachmann, A., McDermott, M. G., Monteiro, C. D., Gundersen, G. W. & Ma’ayan, A. (2016) Enrichr: a comprehensive gene set enrichment analysis web server 2016 update.Nucleic Acids Research,44(W1), W90–W97. Epub 2016 May 3

    work page 2016

  33. [33]

    W., Ryan, D

    Li, M., Schweiger, M. W., Ryan, D. J., Nakano, I., Carvalho, L. A., Tannous, B. A. et al. (2021) Olfactory receptor 5B21 drives breast cancer metastasis.iScience,24(12), 103519

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    & Mesirov, J

    Liberzon, A., Subramanian, A., Pinchback, R., Thorvaldsdóttir, H., Tamayo, P. & Mesirov, J. P. (2011) Molecular signatures database (MSigDB) 3.0.Bioinformatics,27(12), 1739–1740

    work page 2011

  35. [35]

    Lin, X., Guo, L., Lin, X., Wang, Y ., Zhang, G. et al. (2022) Expression and prognosis analysis of mitochondrial ribosomal protein family in breast cancer.Scientific Reports,12, 10658

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    F., Montresor, A

    Lotito, Q. F., Montresor, A. & Battiston, F. (2024) Multiplex measures for higher-order networks.Applied Network Science,9, 55

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    M., Czene, K., Valdimarsdóttir, U

    Lu, D., Song, J., Lu, Y ., Fall, K., Chen, X., Fang, F., Landén, M., Hultman, C. M., Czene, K., Valdimarsdóttir, U. A. et al. (2020) A shared genetic contribution to breast cancer and schizophrenia.Nature Communications,11, 4637

    work page 2020

  38. [38]

    & Ghosh, D

    Majhi, S., Perc, M. & Ghosh, D. (2022) Dynamics on higher-order networks: A review.Journal of the Royal Society Interface,19(188), 20220043

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    Masjedi, S., Zwiebel, L. J. & Giorgio, T. D. (2019) Olfactory receptor gene abundance in invasive breast carcinoma. Scientific Reports,9, 13736

    work page 2019

  40. [40]

    D., Vidal, M., Loscalzo, J

    Menche, J., Sharma, A., Kitsak, M., Ghiassian, S. D., Vidal, M., Loscalzo, J. & Barabási, A.-L. (2015) Uncovering disease-disease relationships through the incomplete interactome.Science,347(6224), 1257601

    work page 2015

  41. [41]

    & Pothen, A

    Ramadan, E., Tarafdar, A. & Pothen, A. (2004) A hypergraph model for the yeast protein complex network. In 18th International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium, 2004. Proceedings., page 189. IEEE

    work page 2004

  42. [42]

    M., Ripke, S., McQuillin, A., Boocock, J., Stahl, E

    Ruderfer, D. M., Ripke, S., McQuillin, A., Boocock, J., Stahl, E. A., Pavlides, J. M. W., Mullins, N., Charney, A. W., Goossens, D., Arias, B. et al. (2018) Genomic dissection of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, including 28 subphenotypes.Cell,173(7), 1705–1715.e16

    work page 2018

  43. [43]

    Schmidt, M. J. & Mirnics, K. (2015) Neurodevelopment, GABA System Dysfunction, and Schizophrenia.Neu- ropsychopharmacology,40, 190–206

    work page 2015

  44. [44]

    Solmi, M. et al. (2024) Antipsychotic Use and Risk of Breast Cancer in Women With Schizophrenia: A Nationwide Nested Case-Control Study.Schizophrenia Bulletin,50(6), 1471–1482

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    & Bianconi, G

    Sun, H. & Bianconi, G. (2021) Higher-order percolation processes on multiplex hypergraphs.Physical Review E, 104(3), 034306

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    Tang, M. et al. (2023) Epidemiological and genetic analyses of schizophrenia and breast cancer.Frontiers in Genetics,14, 1199318

    work page 2023

  47. [47]

    Tomita, H. et al. (2013) G protein-linked signaling pathways in bipolar and major depressive disorders.Frontiers in Genetics,4, 297

    work page 2013

  48. [48]

    A., Waltman, L

    Traag, V . A., Waltman, L. & Van Eck, N. J. (2019) From Louvain to Leiden: guaranteeing well-connected communities.Scientific Reports,9(1), 5233

    work page 2019

  49. [49]

    Hypergraph and protein function prediction with gene expression data

    Tran, L. (2012) Hypergraph and protein function prediction with gene expression data.arXiv preprint arXiv:1212.0388

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  50. [50]

    & Sharan, R

    Vanunu, O., Magger, O., Ruppin, E., Shlomi, T. & Sharan, R. (2010) Associating genes and protein complexes with disease via network propagation.PLoS Computational Biology,6(1), e1000641

    work page 2010

  51. [51]

    & Tudisco, F

    Venturini, S., Cristofari, A., Rinaldi, F. & Tudisco, F. (2023) Laplacian-based semi-supervised learning in multilayer hypergraphs by coordinate descent.EURO Journal on Computational Optimization,11, 100079

    work page 2023

  52. [52]

    & Zhang, N

    Wang, C., Shi, J., Cai, J., Zhang, Y ., Zheng, X. & Zhang, N. (2022) DriverRWH: discovering cancer driver genes by random walk on a gene mutation hypergraph.BMC bioinformatics,23(1), 277

    work page 2022