Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 46 references

High-dimensional Statistics Applications to Batch Effects in Metabolomics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read New tests find batch effects hiding in covariance

desk verdict QC-ST is a useful applied idea with solid simulations; CoCo's evaluation is circular and the QC-to-subject transfer unvalidated, so the paper needs major revision but deserves referee time. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10196 v1 pith:6Z5XC5JK submitted 2024-12-13 stat.ME q-bio.BMstat.APstat.ML

Zhendong Guo This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MEq-bio.BMstat.APstat.ML MSC 62H1562H12
keywords batcheffectsmetabolomicsqualitycontrolsamplessimultaneoustestshigh-dimensionalstatisticscovariancecorrectiongraphicalelasticneteffectevaluation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that batch effects in metabolomics cannot be diagnosed or fixed by location alone: they also live in the covariance structure of the measured metabolites. The author proposes two procedures built on recent high-dimensional statistics: QC-ST, a simultaneous test that checks whether quality-control samples from two batches share the same mean vector and the same covariance matrix, and CoCo, a correction step that uses the graphical elastic net to estimate invertible precision matrices and rotates each batch's subject samples so the covariance matrices match. Simulations show QC-ST controls its size near 0.05 and attains high power with ten or more QC samples per batch, while real datasets suggest XGBoost is the strongest prepositive correction and that CoCo further improves relative standard deviation, dispersion ratio, classification performance, and the QC-ST verdict. If this holds, batch correction becomes a guided two-stage process rather than a black-box choice.

What carries the argument

The two load-bearing objects are the simultaneous test statistic and the GELNET precision estimator. QC-ST relies on a simultaneous test of the null $H_0: \mu_1 = \mu_2, \Sigma_1 = \Sigma_2$, selecting among nine candidate statistics the ones with good size behavior for small $n$ (HN, Yu-Fisher, Yu-Cauchy), and combining its result with a separate mean-only test and a covariance-only test to say which parameter is responsible. CoCo uses the graphical elastic net (GELNET) to estimate an invertible precision matrix $\hat{\Theta}_j$ from high-dimensional QC samples, converts it to a covariance estimator $\hat{\Sigma}_j = \hat{\Theta}_j^{-1}$, forms the weighted average $\tilde{\Sigma}$, and applies the affine transformation $A_j = \hat{\Theta}_j^{1/2} \tilde{\Sigma}^{1/2}$ to subject samples. The key idea is that correcting covariances in the "large $p$, small $n$" regime becomes feasible because GELNET produces a positive definite precision estimate where the empirical covariance matrix is singular.

What would settle it

Simulate two batches with n=10, p=500, one drawn from N(0, I_p) and the other from N(0, Sigma) where Sigma has a known correlation shift but identical means; if QC-ST's rejection rate over 5,000 repetitions stays below 80%, the claimed covariance detection power is not achieved.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that batch effects in metabolomics should be tested and corrected at the level of both first and second moments. QC-ST simultaneously tests $H_0: \mu_1 = \mu_2$ and $\Sigma_1 = \Sigma_2$ across a pair of batches, using simultaneous-test statistics (HN, Yu-Fisher, Yu-Cauchy) that tolerate "large $p$, small $n$" QC samples; the author shows empirically that these three methods keep empirical sizes near the 0.05 level and reach over 80% power once the average QC sample size is at least 10, while gPCA, the current statistical alternative, cannot detect covariance-only differences. CoCo then addresses the cases QC-ST flags: it estimates each batch's precision matrix with GELNET, builds the normalized covariance matrix $\tilde{\Sigma}$ as a weighted average, and applies the transformation $A_j = \hat{\Theta}_j^{1/2} \tilde{\Sigma}^{1/2}$ to the subject samples, after translating the mean back. On two large cohorts, the author reports that this pipeline, especially XGBoost followed by CoCo, improves all four chosen metrics and that CoCo is only necessary when QC-ST still finds significant covariance differences.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument rests on treating QC samples from different batches, after any correction, as draws from one shared multivariate normal distribution; if batch-free QC samples are not multivariate normal, or if the GELNET precision estimates from small QC pools are unreliable, both QC-ST and CoCo lose their ground.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • When the average QC sample size per batch is at least 10, QC-ST achieves over 80% empirical power in the tested simulation settings, so batch design should aim for at least 10 QC samples per batch when possible.
  • QC-ST can be used as a correction-assessment metric alongside RSD, D-ratio, and classification performance, and it tells the user whether residual batch effects come from means, covariances, or both.
  • Under the guidance of QC-ST, a matching strategy can rationally select among SVR, RF, TIGER, and XGBoost; on the two cohorts studied, XGBoost performs best as the prepositive correction.
  • CoCo is only needed when QC-ST still flags significance after a prepositive correction, and when it succeeds it can further improve RSD, D-ratio, classification performance, and the QC-ST verdict.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same simultaneous-test framework could be carried over to other "large p, small n" omics pipelines where covariance drift is often ignored, not just metabolomics.
  • A stricter falsification test for CoCo would compare downstream classification AUC on held-out subjects across batches before and after the transformation, rather than only reporting QC-sample metrics.
  • Because QC-ST reports which parameter is significant, it invites a decision tree that chooses different corrections for mean-only versus covariance-only batch effects, a distinction current correction workflows rarely make.
  • CoCo's dependence on GELNET penalties suggests a practical extension where the target matrix is estimated from known biological structure instead of the identity matrix, which could improve correction when metabolite networks are partially known.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes two methods for batch effects in metabolomics: QC-ST, a simultaneous test of the equality of mean vectors and covariance matrices across batches based on high-dimensional tests, and CoCo, a batch effect correction that uses GELNET-based precision matrix estimates from QC samples to construct linear transformations for subject samples. The authors evaluate QC-ST in simulations against existing methods, apply four QC-based correction algorithms to two real metabolomics datasets, and report RSD, D-ratio, classification performance, and QC-ST as assessment metrics. They conclude that QC-ST is a valid batch effect evaluation tool and that CoCo can further improve the four metrics after prepositive correction.

Significance. The idea of testing both mean and covariance homogeneity of QC samples is a reasonable extension of existing BEE methods, and the simulation study for QC-ST is extensive: 5,000 repetitions over n1,n2 in {5,10,20,40} and p in {50,100,250,500}, with comparisons to gPCA and nine simultaneous tests. The computational speed comparison (Table 9) is a useful practical contribution, and the authors provide an R package. However, the empirical size results are undermined by an apparent copy-paste error in Table 2, and the CoCo method's evaluation is circular because its hyperparameters are selected using the same QC-ST criterion that is later reported as a success metric. The transfer of QC-sample covariance corrections to subject samples is unvalidated and is admitted by the authors in Section 2.6 to be potentially overoptimistic. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's central claims, so the significance of the work as submitted is limited.

major comments (3)
  1. [Table 2, Section 3.1.1] The gPCA rows in Table 2 are identical to the Yu-Cauchy rows for every (n1, n2, p) combination; for example, at (5,5) both report 0.0562, 0.0536, 0.0556, 0.0498. Since gPCA and Yu-Cauchy are different procedures, this cannot be a coincidence and indicates a copy-paste error. The empirical size comparison in Section 3.1.1, including the statement that 'gPCA also performs well,' is therefore not reliable. The gPCA simulations must be rerun and the table corrected before the size performance of QC-ST can be assessed.
  2. [Section 2.5.2, step 4; Section 3.2] CoCo's hyperparameters (alpha, lambda) are selected by random search to satisfy 'no statistical significance between the QC samples' covariance matrices of any two batches,' i.e., using QC-ST on the same data. The paper then reports QC-ST as a success metric after CoCo (Figures 3a and 4a). This makes the evaluation metric the selection criterion: QC-ST after CoCo is non-significant by construction for the batches used in selection, so it cannot serve as independent evidence of improvement. The paper itself warns in Section 2.6 that 'RSD and QC-ST only examine QC samples, which might lead to overoptimistic and incomplete results,' and this warning applies directly to the CoCo hyperparameter selection. An independent validation set, held-out batches, or a selection criterion based on subject-level data is required.
  3. [Section 2.5.2, step 2] The transformation A_j = Theta-hat_j^{1/2} Sigma-tilde^{1/2} is estimated from QC samples and applied to subject samples as Y_j^(ss) = X_j^(ss) A_j. This presupposes that subject within-batch covariance equals QC technical covariance plus a batch-invariant biological component. QC samples are pooled, so their covariance reflects only technical variation, while subject covariance also contains biological variation. Equalizing QC covariance across batches does not imply equalizing subject covariance, and the transformation can distort biological covariance. No simulation, analytical argument, or independent check supports this transfer. The subject-level metrics used (D-ratio and classification AUC) are not covariance-equality tests and can improve even when subject covariance remains confounded or biological signal is degraded. The claim that CoCo can further improve the four metrics (Abstract; Section 3.2.2) is therefore not established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 4] The table header presents the thresholds for RSD (<15%, <20%, <30%) and D-ratio (<50%) in a single row, which makes it easy to misread the columns as a single monotone sequence; separate header rows for each metric would improve clarity.
  2. [Section 2.5.2] The square root of a positive definite matrix is not unique; please specify that A_j^{1/2} denotes the symmetric square root.
  3. [Appendix A] The formula delta = sqrt(eta p^{-1/2}) appears dimensionally inconsistent; please clarify, for instance whether delta = sqrt(eta / p) was intended.
  4. [Section 2.3] The notation y(i) for 'several variables with the highest correlations' is undefined; a clearer notation such as y_{(i)} would help.
  5. [References] Reference [18] contains a typo in the author name ('Csrg' should be 'Csörgő').

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

CoCo's QC-ST improvement is circular: hyperparameters are selected to make QC covariance tests non-significant, then QC-ST is reported as a success metric.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.5.2, Step 4; Section 2.4; Section 2.6 and Abstract]
    "Subsequently, use 500 times of random search (i.e., obtain 500 (α, λ) settings randomly) by default, and select the (α, λ) setting which meets the following conditions successively: • There must be no statistical significance between the QC samples’ covariance matrices of any two batches. ... After CoCo (if necessary), the four metrics (i.e., RSD, D-ratio, classification performance, and QC-ST) might be further improved."

    CoCo's hyperparameters are chosen by random search specifically to satisfy 'no statistical significance between the QC samples' covariance matrices of any two batches.' Since the prepositive BEC pipeline already uses batch-ratio, which the paper states 'can ensure the consistency among QC samples' mean vectors across different batches after correction,' the only remaining QC-ST component is the covariance term. Therefore, after CoCo, a non-significant QC-ST result is guaranteed by the selection criterion. Reporting QC-ST as evidence that CoCo 'further improved' the data is a fitted-input-called-prediction: the evaluation metric is the optimization objective, not an independent outcome.

full rationale

The paper's QC-ST test itself is independently supported by simulation studies of empirical size and power, and no load-bearing self-citation chain was found. CoCo's use of GELNET precision-matrix estimation is borrowed from external literature and is not circular. The circularity is localized to the QC-ST-based evaluation of CoCo: Section 2.5.2 selects (α, λ) explicitly to make QC covariance matrices statistically indistinguishable across batches, and Section 2.6 then lists QC-ST as one of the four metrics that CoCo 'might further improve.' Because batch-ratio already equalizes QC means, the QC-ST improvement after CoCo reduces to the optimization criterion itself. The other reported metrics (RSD, D-ratio, classification) are independent and could in principle support CoCo, though the paper does not provide formal inference for the classification gain and the transfer of QC-sample covariance correction to subject samples rests on an unvalidated assumption. Thus the central claim is partially circular: one of the four headline metrics is forced by construction, while the remainder has independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced. The free parameters are the CoCo hyperparameters and default regression settings. The key axioms are the multivariate normality of QC samples and the transferability of QC-derived corrections to subject samples.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha_j, lambda_j (per batch) = not reported (random search over 500 settings)
    CoCo hyperparameters in Section 2.5.2 step 4 are chosen by random search to satisfy the QC-ST criterion and minimize mean variance fold change.
  • y(i): number of correlated variables in regression = 10 (default)
    Section 2.3 states '10 by default' for the variables with highest correlations used as predictors in SVR/RF/XGBoost BEC.
  • Simulation power parameters pct, eta, rho1, rho2 = pct=5%, eta=0.3, rho1=0.3, rho2=-0.3 (for Hm∩Hc)
    Appendix A chooses these to generate alternative hypotheses; they are not method parameters but affect the reported power values.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption QC samples follow a multivariate normal distribution when no batch effects are present
    Stated in Section 1: 'we assume that if without batch effects, QC samples across different batches should follow the same multivariate normal distribution.'
  • domain assumption GELNET provides a consistent estimator of the precision matrix for n small, p large
    Section 2.5.1 relies on graphical elastic net from Kovacs et al. [41] to obtain invertible covariance estimates; the finite-sample behavior with n ~ 10 is not validated in this paper.
  • domain assumption Batch effects on covariance are identical for QC and subject samples
    CoCo applies the transformation derived from QC samples to subject samples (Section 2.5.2 step 2), assuming the batch covariance structure transfers.
  • standard math The transformation A_j = Θ̂_j^{1/2} Σ̃^{1/2} yields equal covariance matrices
    Section 2.5.1 derives this for invertible covariance matrices; it is algebraically correct when the estimators are valid.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-dimensional Statistics Applications to Batch Effects in Metabolomics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6Z5XC5JK

@misc{pith2026241210196,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-dimensional Statistics Applications to Batch Effects in Metabolomics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6Z5XC5JK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10196}
}
read the original abstract

Batch effects are inevitable in large-scale metabolomics. Prior to formal data analysis, batch effect correction (BEC) is applied to prevent from obscuring biological variations, and batch effect evaluation (BEE) is used for correction assessment. However, existing BEE algorithms neglect covariances between the variables, and existing BEC algorithms might fail to adequately correct the covariances. Therefore, we resort to recent advancements in high-dimensional statistics, and respectively propose "quality control-based simultaneous tests (QC-ST)" and "covariance correction (CoCo)". Validated by the simulation data, QC-ST can simultaneously detect the statistical significance of QC samples' mean vectors and covariance matrices across different batches, and has a satisfactory statistical performance in empirical sizes, empirical powers, and computational speed. Then, we apply four QC-based BEC algorithms to two large cohort datasets, and find that extreme gradient boost (XGBoost) performs best in relative standard deviation (RSD) and dispersion-ratio (D-ratio). After prepositive BEC, if QC-ST still suggests that batch effects between some two batches are significant, CoCo should be implemented. And after CoCo (if necessary), the four metrics (i.e., RSD, D-ratio, classification performance, and QC-ST) might be further improved. In summary, under the guidance of QC-ST, we can develop a matching strategy to integrate multiple BEC algorithms more rationally and flexibly, and minimize batch effects for reliable biological conclusions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10196 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview a: Workflow of data processing. b: Visualization by the PCA score plot, the heatmap, and the undirected graph. 2.4 QC-ST Autoscale the combined QC samples’ data from all the batches, and evaluate the significance of batch effects by the simultaneous test pairwise. Choose αsig = 0.05, and calculate the adjusted p-value (i.e., q-value) with the false discovery rate (FDR) method [37]. If q-value ≥ αsig, batch … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Statistical performance assessment Here, we take (n1, n2, p) = (20, 20, 250) with the Yu-Fisher method as an example. a: The simultaneous test and gPCA both correctly accept the null hypothesis H0. b: The simultaneous test and gPCA both correctly accept the alternative hypothesis Hm. c: The simultaneous test correctly accepts the alternative hypothesis Hc, but gPCA makes a Type II error. d: The simultaneous test and… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Correction assessment of Dataset I a: The heatmap of QC-ST, where the capital letters denote the batch names; b: The distribution of RSD and D-ratio; c: The scatter plot of intensity, where the metabolite, plasmenyl-PC (34:2), is taken as an example here. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Correction assessment of Dataset II a: The heatmap of QC-ST, where the capital letters denote the batch names; b: The distribution of RSD and D-ratio; c: The scatter plot of intensity, where the metabolite, dimethylguanidino valeric acid (DMGV), is taken as an example …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Classification performance of Dataset II [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Quality assur- ance procedures for mass spectrometry untargeted metabolomics

    Dudzik, D.; Barbas-Bernardos, C.; Garcia, A.; Barbas, C. Quality assur- ance procedures for mass spectrometry untargeted metabolomics. a review. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis2018, 147, 149-173. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2017.07.044

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jpba.2017.07.044

  2. [2]

    Evaluating and minimizing batch effects in metabolomics

    Han, W.; Li, L. Evaluating and minimizing batch effects in metabolomics. Mass Spectrometry Reviews2020, 41 (3), 421-442. DOI: 10.1002/mas.21672

    work page doi:10.1002/mas.21672

  3. [3]

    Instrumental Drift in Untargeted Metabolomics: Optimizing Data Quality with Intrastudy QC Samples

    Martens, A.; Holle, J.; Mollenhauer, B.; Wegner, A.; Kirwan, J.; Hiller, K. Instrumental Drift in Untargeted Metabolomics: Optimizing Data Quality with Intrastudy QC Samples. Metabolites 2023, 13 (5). DOI: 10.3390/metabo13050665

    work page doi:10.3390/metabo13050665 2023

  4. [4]

    Goh, W. W. B.; Wang, W.; Wong, L. Why Batch Effects Matter in Omics Data, and How to Avoid Them.Trends in Biotechnology 2017, 35 (6), 498-507. DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.02.012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.02.012 2017

  5. [5]

    N.; Kuligowski, J.; Wilson, I

    Broadhurst, D.; Goodacre, R.; Reinke, S. N.; Kuligowski, J.; Wilson, I. D.; Lewis, M. R.; Dunn, W. B. Guidelines and considerations for the use of system suitability and quality control samples in mass spectrometry assays applied in untargeted clinical metabolomic studies.Metabolomics 2018, 14 (6), 72. DOI: 10.1007/s11306-018-1367-3

    doi:10.1007/s11306-018-1367-3 2018

  6. [6]

    Analytical Er- ror Reduction Using Single Point Calibration for Accurate and Precise Metabolomic Phenotyping.Journal of Proteome Research2009, 8, 5132-

    van der Kloet, F.; Bobeldijk, I.; Verheij, E.; Jellema, R. Analytical Er- ror Reduction Using Single Point Calibration for Accurate and Precise Metabolomic Phenotyping.Journal of Proteome Research2009, 8, 5132-

    work page

  7. [7]

    A.; Ebbels, T

    Kamleh, M. A.; Ebbels, T. M. D.; Spagou, K.; Masson, P.; Want, E. J. Optimizing the Use of Quality Control Samples for Signal Drift Correction in Large-Scale Urine Metabolic Profiling Studies.Analytical Chemistry 2012, 84 (6), 2670-2677. DOI: 10.1021/ac202733q

    work page doi:10.1021/ac202733q 2012

  8. [8]

    Wang, S.-Y.; Kuo, C.-H.; Tseng, Y. J. Batch Normalizer: A Fast Total Abundance Regression Calibration Method to Simultaneously Adjust Batch and Injection Order Effects in Liquid Chromatography/Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry-Based Metabolomics Data and Comparison with Current Calibration Methods.Analytical Chemistry 2012, 85 (2), 1037-1046. DOI: 10.1021/...

    work page doi:10.1021/ac302877x 2012

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    B.; Broadhurst, D.; Begley, P.; Zelena, E.; Francis-McIntyre, S.; Anderson, N.; Brown, M.; Knowles, J

    Dunn, W. B.; Broadhurst, D.; Begley, P.; Zelena, E.; Francis-McIntyre, S.; Anderson, N.; Brown, M.; Knowles, J. D.; Halsall, A.; Haselden, J. N.; et al. Procedures for large-scale metabolic profiling of serum and plasma using gas chromatography and liquid chromatography couple...

    doi

  2. [10]

    A.; Broadhurst, D

    Kirwan, J. A.; Broadhurst, D. I.; Davidson, R. L.; Viant, M. R. Character- ising and correcting batch variation in an automated direct infusion mass spectrometry (DIMS) metabolomics workflow.Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 2013, 405 (15), 5147-5157. DOI: 10.1007/s00216-...

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    Intra-batch effect correction in liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry using quality control samples and support vector regression (QC-SVRC)

    Kuligowski, J.; Sanchez-Illana, A.; Sanjuan-Herraez, D.; Vento, M.; Quintas, G. Intra-batch effect correction in liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry using quality control samples and support vector regression (QC-SVRC). Analyst 2015, 140 (22), 7810-7817. DOI: 10.1039/c5an01638j

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    Normalization and integration of large-scale metabolomics data using support vector regression.Metabolomics 2016, 12 (5)

    Shen, X.; Gong, X.; Cai, Y.; Guo, Y.; Tu, J.; Li, H.; Zhang, T.; Wang, J.; Xue, F.; Zhu, Z.-J. Normalization and integration of large-scale metabolomics data using support vector regression.Metabolomics 2016, 12 (5). DOI: 10.1007/s11306-016-1026-5

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    Norm ISWSVR: A Data Integration and Normalization Approach for Large- Scale Metabolomics.Analytical Chemistry 2022, 94 (21), 7500-7509

    Ding, X.; Yang, F.; Chen, Y.; Xu, J.; He, J.; Zhang, R.; Abliz, Z. Norm ISWSVR: A Data Integration and Normalization Approach for Large- Scale Metabolomics.Analytical Chemistry 2022, 94 (21), 7500-7509. DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.1c05502

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    statTarget: A streamlined tool for signal drift correction and interpretations of quantitative mass spectrometry- based omics data

    Luan, H.; Ji, F.; Chen, Y.; Cai, Z. statTarget: A streamlined tool for signal drift correction and interpretations of quantitative mass spectrometry- based omics data. Analytica Chimica Acta 2018, 1036, 66-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2018.08.002

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    L.; Tang, W

    Fan, S.; Kind, T.; Cajka, T.; Hazen, S. L.; Tang, W. H. W.; Kaddurah- Daouk, R.; Irvin, M. R.; Arnett, D. K.; Barupal, D. K.; Fiehn, O. Systematic Error Removal Using Random Forest for Normalizing Large-Scale Untar- geted Lipidomics Data.Analytical Chemistry 2019, 91 (5), 3590...

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    TIGER: technical variation elimination for metabolomics data using ensemble learning architecture

    Han, S.; Huang, J.; Foppiano, F.; Prehn, C.; Adamski, J.; Suhre, K.; Li, Y.; Matullo, G.; Schliess, F.; Gieger, C.; et al. TIGER: technical variation elimination for metabolomics data using ensemble learning architecture. Briefings in Bioinformatics 2022, 23 (2). DOI: 10.1093/...

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    Chen, T.; Guestrin, C.; Machinery, A. C. XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System. In KDD’16: Proceedings of the 22Nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2016; pp 785-794. DOI: 10.1145/2939672.2939785

    2016

  10. [18]

    A Comparative Analysis of XGBoost

    Bentéjac, C.; Csrg, A.; Martínez-Muoz, G. A Comparative Analysis of XGBoost. arXiv 2019. DOI: arXiv:1911.01914. 22

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    D.; Sanjuan-Herráez, J

    Sánchez-Illana, Á.; Piñeiro-Ramos, J. D.; Sanjuan-Herráez, J. D.; Vento, M.; Quintás, G.; Kuligowski, J. Evaluation of batch effect elimination using quality control replicates in LC-MS metabolite profiling.Analytica Chimica Acta 2018, 1019, 38-48. DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2018.02.053

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    R.; Chu, T

    Li, J.; Bushel, P. R.; Chu, T. M.; Wolfinger, R. D.Principal Variance Com- ponents Analysis: Estimating Batch Effects in Microarray Gene Expression Data; Batch Effects and Noise in Microarray Experiments: Sources and Solutions, 2009

    2009

  13. [21]

    M.; Kennedy, M

    Goodpaster, A. M.; Kennedy, M. A. Quantification and statistical signifi- cance analysis of group separation in NMR-based metabonomics studies. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems2011, 109 (2), 162-170. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemolab.2011.08.009

    doi

  14. [22]

    E.; Archer, K

    Reese, S. E.; Archer, K. J.; Therneau, T. M.; Atkinson, E. J.; Vachon, C. M.; de Andrade, M.; Kocher, J.-P. A.; Eckel-Passow, J. E. A new statistic for identifying batch effects in high-throughput genomic data that uses guided principal component analysis.Bioinformatics 2013, ...

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    Correcting batch effects in large-scale multiomics studies using a reference-material-based ratio method.Genome Biology 2023, 24 (1), 201

    Yu, Y.; Zhang, N.; Mai, Y.; Ren, L.; Chen, Q.; Cao, Z.; Chen, Q.; Liu, Y.; Hou, W.; Yang, J.; et al. Correcting batch effects in large-scale multiomics studies using a reference-material-based ratio method.Genome Biology 2023, 24 (1), 201. DOI: 10.1186/s13059-023-03047-z

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    C.; Christensen, W

    Rencher, A. C.; Christensen, W. F.Methods of Multivariate Analysis, Third Edition; John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2012

    2012

  17. [25]

    A review of 20 years of naive tests of significance for high-dimensional mean vectors and covariance matrices.Science China Mathematics 2016, 59 (12), 2281-2300

    Hu, J.; Bai, Z. A review of 20 years of naive tests of significance for high-dimensional mean vectors and covariance matrices.Science China Mathematics 2016, 59 (12), 2281-2300. DOI: 10.1007/s11425-016-0131-0

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    X.; Qin, Y.-L

    Chen, S. X.; Qin, Y.-L. A two-sample test for high-dimensional data with applications to gene-set testing.The Annals of Statistics2010, 38 (2). DOI: 10.1214/09-aos716

    doi

  19. [27]

    Li, J.; Chen, S. X. Two sample tests for high-dimensional covariance matrices. The Annals of Statistics2012, 40 (2). DOI: 10.1214/12-aos993

    doi

  20. [28]

    A simultaneous testing of the mean vector and the covariance matrix among two populations for high-dimensional data

    Hyodo, M.; Nishiyama, T. A simultaneous testing of the mean vector and the covariance matrix among two populations for high-dimensional data. Test 2017, 27 (3), 680-699. DOI: 10.1007/s11749-017-0567-x

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    Miao, R.; Xu, K. Joint test for homogeneity of high-dimensional means and covariance matrices using maximum-type statistics.Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation2022, 53 (2), 972-992. DOI: 10.1080/03610918.2022.2037641. 23

  22. [30]

    Yu, X.; Li, D.; Xue, L.; Li, R. Power-Enhanced Simultaneous Test of High- Dimensional Mean Vectors and Covariance Matrices with Application to Gene-Set Testing.Journal of the American Statistical Association2022, 118 (544), 2548-2561. DOI: 10.1080/01621459.2022.2061354

  23. [31]

    A data preprocessing strategy for metabolomics to reduce the mask effect in data analysis.Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences 2015, 2, 4

    Yang, J.; Zhao, X.; Lu, X.; Lin, X.; Xu, G. A data preprocessing strategy for metabolomics to reduce the mask effect in data analysis.Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences 2015, 2, 4. DOI: 10.3389/fmolb.2015.00004

    2015

  24. [32]

    J.; Buhlmann, P

    Stekhoven, D. J.; Buhlmann, P. MissForest–non-parametric missing value imputation for mixed-type data.Bioinformatics 2012, 28 (1), 112-118. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr597

    2012 doi

  25. [33]

    Multivariate process and quality monitoring applied to an electrolysis process Part I

    Wikstrom, C.; Albano, C.; Eriksson, L.; Friden, H.; Johansson, E.; Nordahl, A.; Rannar, S.; Sandberg, M.; Kettaneh-Wold, N.; Wold, S. Multivariate process and quality monitoring applied to an electrolysis process Part I. Process supervision with multivariate control charts.Che...

  26. [34]

    J.; Correia, G

    Blaise, B. J.; Correia, G. D. S.; Haggart, G. A.; Surowiec, I.; Sands, C.; Lewis, M. R.; Pearce, J. T. M.; Trygg, J.; Nicholson, J. K.; Holmes, E.; et al. Statistical analysis in metabolic phenotyping.Nature Protocols2021, 16 (9), 4299-4326. DOI: 10.1038/s41596-021-00579-1

    doi

  27. [35]

    Saccenti, E.; Camacho, J. Determining the number of components in princi- pal components analysis: A comparison of statistical, crossvalidation and approximated methods.Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 2015, 149, 99-116. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemolab.2015.10.006

    2015 doi

  28. [36]

    T.; Kott, K

    Kim, T.; Tang, O.; Vernon, S. T.; Kott, K. A.; Koay, Y. C.; Park, J.; James, D. E.; Grieve, S. M.; Speed, T. P.; Yang, P.; et al. A hierarchical approach to removal of unwanted variation for large-scale metabolomics data.Nature Communications 2021, 12 (1). DOI: 10.1038/s41467-...

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society

    Benjamini, Y.; Hochberg, Y. Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B: Methodological1995, 57 (1), 289-300

  30. [38]

    Sparse inverse covariance esti- mation with the graphical lasso.Biostatistics 2008, 9 (3), 432-441

    Friedman, J.; Hastie, T.; Tibshirani, R. Sparse inverse covariance esti- mation with the graphical lasso.Biostatistics 2008, 9 (3), 432-441. DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxm045

    2008 doi

  31. [39]

    N.; Peeters, C

    van Wieringen, W. N.; Peeters, C. F. W. Ridge estimation of inverse covariance matrices from high-dimensional data.Computational Statistics & Data Analysis2016, 103, 284-303. DOI: 10.1016/j.csda.2016.05.012

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    O.; Kemppainen, J

    Kuismin, M. O.; Kemppainen, J. T.; Sillanpää, M. J. Precision Matrix Estimation With ROPE.Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 2017, 26 (3), 682-694. DOI: 10.1080/10618600.2016.1278002. 24

    2017

  33. [41]

    Graphical Elastic Net and Target Matrices: Fast Algorithms and Software for Sparse Precision Matrix Estimation.arXiv 2021

    Kovács, S.; Ruckstuhl, T.; Obrist, H.; Bühlmann, P. Graphical Elastic Net and Target Matrices: Fast Algorithms and Software for Sparse Precision Matrix Estimation.arXiv 2021. DOI: arXiv:2101.02148

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    High-Dimensional Precision Matrix Estimation through GSOS with Application in the Foreign Exchange Market

    Kheyri, A.; Bekker, A.; Arashi, M. High-Dimensional Precision Matrix Estimation through GSOS with Application in the Foreign Exchange Market. Mathematics 2022, 10 (22). DOI: 10.3390/math10224232

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    A Computational Note on the Graphical Ridge in High-dimension.arXiv 2023

    Bekker, A.; Kheyri, A.; Arashi, M. A Computational Note on the Graphical Ridge in High-dimension.arXiv 2023. DOI: arXiv:2312.15781

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Concordance-Based Batch Effect Correction for Large-Scale Metabolomics

    Guo, F.; Lin, G.; Dong, L.; Cheng, K.-K.; Deng, L.; Xu, X.; Raftery, D.; Dong, J. Concordance-Based Batch Effect Correction for Large-Scale Metabolomics. Analytical Chemistry 2023, 95 (18), 7220-7228. DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.2c05748

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    H.; Snipen, L.; Sæbø, S

    Mehmood, T.; Liland, K. H.; Snipen, L.; Sæbø, S. A review of vari- able selection methods in Partial Least Squares Regression. Chemo- metrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 2012, 118, 62-69. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemolab.2012.07.010. 25

    2012 doi

  38. [5141]

    DOI: 10.1021/pr900499r

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.