Supporting Information for<break/>ICODEN: Ordinary Differential Equation<break/>Neural Networks for Interval-Censored Data

S1 section S1 S1 §S1 <tag close=" ">S1</tag>Neural Network Training in the Simple Simulation Case

We examined the NN training by visualizing the loss across training epochs in this simple example, as illustrated in Figure . The graph shows a clear and steady decline in validation loss, which eventually reaches a plateau at epoch about 20, indicating convergence of the model. The validation loss stabilizes after epoch 20, indicating that the model achieves stable performance beyond this point. This suggests that including the regularization term helps prevent overfitting, indicating that training for a sufficiently large number of epochs can yield stable performance.

Figure S1.1 Figure S1.1 S1.1 Figure S1.1 S1.1Loss function value by epoch in the training set and validation set in the simple simulation case. The epoch range is from 0 (the beginning of training) to epoch 50. Figure S1.1Loss function value by epoch in the training set and validation set in the simple simulation case. The epoch range is from 0 (the beginning of training) to epoch 50.

S2 section S2 S2 §S2 <tag close=" ">S2</tag>Hyperparameter Tuning in Simulation and Real Data Analysis

We explored various hyperparameters in the ICODEN model (Table ), and some hyperparameters used in specific scenarios are listed below (Table ). We used a one-at-a-time (OAT) hyperparameter tuning approach: for each hyperparameter, we held all the others fixed at their values and then varied the target hyperparameter over the predefined grid. We repeated this procedure for every hyperparameter and selected the settings that maximized performance. Figures and present the evaluation metrics across tuning parameters for the synthetic simulation and the ADNI dataset with 71 SNPs.

Table S2.1 Table S2.1 S2.1 Table S2.1 S2.1Hyperparameter values considered during tuning

Table S2.1Hyperparameter values considered during tuning
Hyperparameter	Values Considered
Hidden Layers	2
Nodes per Layer	From 10 to 500
$L 1$ Parameter	1, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001, 0.0001
Batch Size	100, 400
Epoch Size	50, 100
Learning Rate	0.1, 0.01, 0.001, 0.0001

Table S2.2 Table S2.2 S2.2 Table S2.2 S2.2Hyperparameters used in simulation and real data analysis • item 1st item

^a For simulation Scenario 4 with $= p 300$ and synthetic simulation.

• item 2nd item

^b For the 71 SNPs case.

• item 3rd item

^c For the 89 SNPs case.

Table S2.2Hyperparameters used in simulation and real data analysis
	Simple Example	Simulations^a	ADNI^b	AREDS^c
Hidden Layers	2	2	2	2
Nodes per Layer	10	400	50	100
$L 1$ Parameter	0.01	0.1	0.001	0.001
Batch Size	100	400	400	400
Epoch Size	50	100	100	100
Learning Rate	0.1	0.001	0.01	0.01

Figure S2.1 Figure S2.1 S2.1 Figure S2.1 S2.1MSE in validation set through OAT hyperparameter tuning in synthetic simulation. The first graph shows the change in MSE for different numbers of nodes per layer. The second graph shows the MSE under different learning rates. The third graph shows the MSE with different choices of

L 1

penalty parameter. Figure S2.1MSE in validation set through OAT hyperparameter tuning in synthetic simulation. The first graph shows the change in MSE for different numbers of nodes per layer. The second graph shows the MSE under different learning rates. The third graph shows the MSE with different choices of

L 1

penalty parameter.

Figure S2.2 Figure S2.2 S2.2 Figure S2.2 S2.2IBS in validation set through OAT hyperparameter tuning in ADNI with 71 SNPs. The first graph shows the IBS score change for different numbers of nodes per layer. The second graph shows the IBS score under different learning rates. The third graph shows the IBS score with different choices of

L 1

penalty parameters. Figure S2.2IBS in validation set through OAT hyperparameter tuning in ADNI with 71 SNPs. The first graph shows the IBS score change for different numbers of nodes per layer. The second graph shows the IBS score under different learning rates. The third graph shows the IBS score with different choices of

L 1

penalty parameters.

S3 section S3 S3 §S3 <tag close=" ">S3</tag>Time-Rescaling Trick to Accelerate the Computation

Every individual has a different predictor $X i$ , so the ordinary differential equation needs to be solved for each individual. After solving the ODE for every individual, one can compute the gradient and update the parameter $θ$ . There are two major steps in the NN computation: forward pass and backward pass. In the forward pass step, the feature $x$ is passed through hidden layers to obtain the prediction. Although there may be no analytical form of solution, we can compute $Λ$ numerically with the ODE solver at any given time $t$ , with the network structure $f$ and the initial value at time $0$ . In the backward pass, the key part is back-propagation to compute gradients of the log-likelihood. We use adjoint sensitivity analysis as described in [] to compute the gradient using augmented ODE from []. Given observed time $t i$ , let $⁢ b (t)$ be an adjoint function such that

otherwise otherwise {= ⁢ b ′ (t) - ⁢ ∂ f θ ∂ Λ b (t) = ⁢ b (t i) 1,

then the gradient is calculated from solving the following augmented ODE

= ⁢ v ′ (t) [⁢ f θ (⁢ Λ (| t x i, θ), t; x i), - ⁢ b (t) ∂ f θ ∂ Λ, - ⁢ b (t) ∂ f θ ∂ θ],

= ⁢ v (t i) [⁢ Λ (| t i x i, θ), 1, ⏟ 0, …, 0 ⁢ length of θ] .

S4 section S4 S4 §S4 <tag close=" ">S4</tag>Additional Subgroup Analysis Results in Real Data Analysis

The results of the subgroup analysis are summarized below. Table reports the top 10 SNPs that show the strongest difference (smallest $p$ -value) between the two identified ADNI subgroups. Figure illustrates the distribution of the genetic risk score among the three identified subgroups of AREDS & AREDS2, with the differences highly significant ( $< p × 2.2 10 - 16$ ).

Table S4.1 Table S4.1 S4.1 Table S4.1 S4.1Contingency table and P-value of the top 10 SNPs with the most significant difference between two risk subgroups in ADNI analysis.

Table S4.1Contingency table and P-value of the top 10 SNPs with the most significant difference between two risk subgroups in ADNI analysis.
Chromosome	Gene	SNP	Allele by Group	0	1	2	P-value
19	APOE	$⁢ r s 429358$	High Risk	481	534	161	$× 4.82 10 - 58$
			Low Risk	460	103	1
1	SORT1	$⁢ r s 4970843$	High Risk	378	579	219	$× 1.73 10 - 21$
			Low Risk	87	265	212
3	SRGAP3	$⁢ r s 147648392$	High Risk	1114	62	0	$× 1.98 10 - 11$
			Low Risk	480	80	4
2	MMADHC	$⁢ r s 1113138$	High Risk	1007	164	5	$× 2.16 10 - 09$
			Low Risk	422	126	16
9	PHF24	$⁢ r s 17355465$	High Risk	1090	84	2	$× 4.40 10 - 09$
			Low Risk	468	93	3
19	TOMM40	$⁢ r s 741780$	High Risk	500	525	151	$× 6.20 10 - 09$
			Low Risk	158	295	111
19	APOE	$⁢ r s 7412$	High Risk	1106	69	1	$× 2.19 10 - 08$
			Low Risk	482	80	2
1	UBR4	$⁢ r s 72650394$	High Risk	988	183	5	$× 8.18 10 - 08$
			Low Risk	529	34	1
1	CAMTA	$⁢ r s 80099124$	High Risk	682	418	76	$× 2.35 10 - 07$
			Low Risk	400	149	15
8	NRG1	$⁢ r s 79622257$	High Risk	709	401	66	$× 3.39 10 - 07$
			Low Risk	412	139	13

Figure S4.1 Figure S4.1 S4.1 Figure S4.1 S4.1Histogram of genetic risk scores across three risk subgroups in the AREDS & AREDS2 datasets. Figure S4.1Histogram of genetic risk scores across three risk subgroups in the AREDS & AREDS2 datasets.

References