Back to Authors

Pappas, Isabelle C.

Mayo Clinic

Cooper Medical School of Rowan University

Citations 2

Graph Neural Networks for Medical Imaging Analysis and Biological Data: Integrating Topology, Geometry, Radiomics, and Generative AI
Singh, Yashbir , Himeur, Yassine , Farrelly, Colleen M., Kadzue, Peguy Kem-Meka Tiotsop , Rozenblit, Jennifer Z. , Kunovac, Amina , Pappas, Isabelle C., Choudhary, Ashok , Salehi, Sara , Atalla, Shadi , Hathaway, Quincy A. , Singh, Yashbir , Hathaway, Quincy A , Salehi, Sara , Rozenblit, Jennifer , Farrelly, Colleen

Bioengineering | June 3, 2026 | Volume: 13 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 638

10.3390/bioengineering13060638 Get It

Graph neural networks (GNNs) are increasingly used for medical imaging analysis and biological data modeling, where the integration of radiomics, topology, geometry, and generative artificial intelligence (AI) may improve representation learning from medical images and related biomedical data. Across the reviewed literature, GNNs show particular value for modeling spatial relationships, multimodal interactions, graph-structured biological networks, and non-Euclidean imaging features that are difficult to capture using conventional convolutional architectures alone. Topology- and geometry-aware approaches further expand this capability by encoding multi-scale structure, higher-order relationships, curvature, geodesic organization, and equivariant spatial priors. Hybrid graph–transformer models and generative graph methods represent emerging directions for modeling long-range dependencies, augmenting scarce datasets, supporting synthetic pretraining, and improving representation learning in low-label or heterogeneous biomedical settings. However, clinical translation remains limited by variability in graph construction, limited external validation, computational cost, scalability constraints, interpretability challenges, and uncertainty regarding the biological realism of synthetic data. Overall, this review highlights that GNN-based medical imaging analysis is most likely to advance when graph construction is biologically justified, model performance is evaluated across diverse clinical cohorts, and technical gains are paired with transparent validation, interpretability, and implementation strategies.
A 10-Year Comprehensive, Single-Center, Retrospective Analysis on Juxtapleural Nodules: Insights into Classification and Risk
Pappas, Isabelle C., Hathaway, Quincy A. , Gbate, Hubert A., Singh, Yashbir , Ghotbi, Elena , Knollmann, Friedrich , Barbosa, Eduardo Mortani, Donuru, Achala , Xu, Dongming, Knollmann, Friedrich D , Singh, Yashbir , Hathaway, Quincy A , Gbate, Hubert, Ghotbi, Elena

Diagnostics | May 28, 2026 | Volume: 16 | Issue: 11 | Pages: 1663

10.3390/diagnostics16111663 Get It

Background/Objectives: Juxtapleural and perifissural nodules are commonly encountered on thoracic imaging, are typically presumed benign, and are often considered to represent intrapulmonary lymph nodes. We evaluated the prevalence, clinical context, and management of juxtapleural nodules over a 10-year period and to assess factors associated with concern for malignancy. Methods: In this retrospective, single-center study, radiology reports from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2024, were queried using natural language processing to identify examinations containing terminology consistent with juxtapleural nodules. After exclusion of duplicate encounters, 85,435 unique patient encounters were analyzed. Reports were further filtered to identify cases with imaging concern for malignancy and recommendations for follow-up or intervention (N = 659). Clinical characteristics, imaging modality, and prior malignancy history were compared using appropriate statistical tests. Results: Among 85,435 unique encounters, 659 patients (<1%) had juxtapleural nodules considered concerning for malignancy. These patients were older (68 vs. 64 years, p < 0.001), more frequently imaged with PET/CT (8% vs. 5%, p < 0.001), and more likely to be evaluated in inpatient settings (16% vs. 12%, p < 0.001). Of the cohort with a juxtapleural nodule considered concerning for malignancy by imaging criteria, 360 patients (55%) had a prior history of malignancy. In these patients, nodules were more commonly identified in outpatient settings (70% vs. 43%, p < 0.001) and on routine imaging (94% vs. 86%, p < 0.001). Representative cases demonstrated that malignant nodules may mimic benign perifissural morphology on initial imaging. Conclusions: Although the vast majority of reported juxtapleural nodules did not prompt malignancy-directed evaluation, a small subset of cases (approximately 0.8%), particularly in patients with prior malignancy, were interpreted as sufficiently concerning to warrant follow-up imaging or intervention. Because pathologic confirmation and standardized long-term outcome adjudication were not available for all patients, these findings should be interpreted as reflecting real-world radiologist concern and management patterns rather than a definitive malignancy rate.