Gaussian copula correlation network analysis with application to multi-omics data

Ekaterina Tomilina (MaIAGE; Florence Jaffr\'ezic (GABI); GABI); Gildas Mazo (MaIAGE)

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 20 references

Gaussian copula correlation network analysis with application to multi-omics data

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the Gaussian copula correlation matrix gives mixed-type multi-omics data a network whose edges carry explicit dependence interpretations, and that a semiparametric pairwise likelihood estimates that matrix accurately.

desk verdict Genuinely useful Bernoulli extreme-value characterization, but the pairwise likelihood estimator as defined is degenerate for continuous variables because the raw empirical CDF hits 1 and makes log c_rho = -inf. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08586 v1 pith:2DWPPVY2 submitted 2025-06-10 stat.ME

Ekaterina Tomilina (MaIAGE , GABI) , Florence Jaffrézic (GABI) , Gildas Mazo (MaIAGE) This is my paper

classification stat.ME MSC 62H0562H1262H2062P10

keywords Gaussiancopulamixed-typedatamulti-omicscorrelationnetworkanalysissemiparametricestimationpairwiselikelihoodmutualindependence

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 claims that a Gaussian copula — a model in which measured variables are arbitrary transformations of a shared hidden normal vector — can serve as the foundation for correlation networks on mixed-type data, spanning continuous protein measurements, count-valued RNA-seq, and rare binary mutations. On this model the network edges are the entries of the copula correlation matrix $\Sigma$, and the paper proves that this matrix has usable meaning: a block-diagonal $\Sigma$ is exactly equivalent to blockwise mutual independence of the observed variables (Proposition 2), and copula correlation values of $\pm 1$ have explicit interpretations in terms of the observed data when one or both variables are Bernoulli (Proposition 3). The paper further claims that $\Sigma$ can be estimated accurately from a semiparametric pairwise likelihood that combines bivariate Gaussian-copula densities with empirical marginal distributions, with simulation evidence of low error even when the number of variables far exceeds the sample size. If the claims hold, multi-omics researchers can build one network over all data types and read its edges as dependence relationships, including for rare mutations, where rank-based coefficients are provably bounded away from useful values.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the Gaussian copula $C_\Sigma(u_1,\ldots,u_d) = \Phi_\Sigma(\Phi^{-1}(u_1),\ldots,\Phi^{-1}(u_d))$ together with the explicit density of the mixed-type model: Proposition 1 writes the joint density of $p$ continuous and $d-p$ discrete variables as the product of the continuous marginal densities times a sum of $2^{d-p}$ terms involving the copula's $p$-th partial derivative, evaluated at the left and right limits of the discrete CDFs. Substituting the bivariate form of this density into a pairwise likelihood — the sum over all pairs $j < j'$ of $\log \hat f_{jj'}(X_j, X_{j'}; \rho_{jj'})$ in Eq. (3), with empirical CDFs in place of the unknown margins — yields the estimator of $\Sigma$. Two propositions carry the interpretation: Proposition 2 reduces blockwise mutual independence to block-diagonal structure in $\Sigma$, and Proposition 3 reduces the extreme values $\rho = \pm 1$ to observable event patterns when Bernoulli variables are involved. Together, estimation and interpretation are what convert a latent correlation matrix into a usable biological network.

What would settle it

Simulate a very large sample ($n = 10^6$) of a Bernoulli(0.05)–Bernoulli(0.10) pair from model (1) with true copula correlation $\rho = 0.9$, estimate $\hat\rho$ by maximizing the pairwise likelihood in Eq. (3) with empirical margins, and check whether the bias vanishes as $n$ grows; if $\hat\rho$ is visibly biased at such a sample size, the claim that the procedure accurately estimates the copula correlation matrix fails even under the model's own assumptions, because the missing consistency proof cannot be supplied by the paper's finite-sample simulations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Gaussian copula correlation matrix is the right object for correlation network analysis of mixed-type data, and that it can be recovered from data. Concretely, the paper establishes that for data following model (1) — a hidden normal vector with arbitrary marginal transformations — the copula correlation $\Sigma$ encodes the full dependence structure: Proposition 2 states that the groups $X_{G_1},\ldots,X_{G_k}$ are mutually independent if and only if $\Sigma$ is block-diagonal with the corresponding blocks, a property the Pearson correlation matrix of the observed variables does not have. Proposition 3 states that for continuous pairs, Bernoulli–continuous pairs, and Bernoulli–Bernoulli pairs satisfying $p_1 \le p_2$ and $p_1 + p_2 \ge 1$, the extreme values of the copula parameter $\rho$ correspond to explicit observed-data events: comonotonicity, threshold domination (a rare mutation occurs only when a more common one is present), and the impossibility of joint occurrence. On the estimation side, the paper claims that maximizing the pairwise likelihood in Eq. (3) over the $d(d-1)/2$ bivariate marginals, with empirical CDFs replacing unknown marginal distributions, accurately recovers $\Sigma$: in simulations with up to 300 variables the normalized RMSE falls below 5% once $n \ge 500$, and the area under the ROC curve for separating zero from nonzero coefficients reaches about 0.9 at $n = 50$ and near 1 at $n = 100$. The same procedure, applied to a breast cancer cohort with RNA-seq counts, protein abundances, and mutation calls, finds strong links among mutations that Spearman and Kendall coefficients cannot express, because those rank coefficients are bounded away from $\pm 1$ for Bernoulli pairs.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the semiparametric pairwise likelihood estimator is consistent for $\Sigma$: the paper does not prove consistency or asymptotic normality and lists both as future work, and every simulation draws data from exactly the Gaussian-copula model being estimated, so estimation error under dependence misspecification is untested.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single correlation network can span RNA-seq counts, protein abundances, and binary mutations, with every edge keeping the same defined meaning across the three data types.
For two mutations, a copula correlation near 1 is directly readable: the rarer mutation occurs only when the more common one does, while a value near $-1$ says the two mutations never co-occur — interpretations the paper verifies on the breast cancer data.
Researchers can look for blockwise independence in mixed-type data by inspecting the block structure of $\hat\Sigma$, since block-diagonal $\Sigma$ is equivalent to blockwise mutual independence (Proposition 2).
Accuracy is available at realistic sample sizes: normalized RMSE stays below 5% for $n \ge 500$ even with $d = 300$ variables, and the ROC area reaches about 0.9 at $n = 50$.
The procedure ships in the freely available R package heterocop, so the estimation is directly usable without reimplementation.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial extension: Proposition 2 suggests a practical independence test — threshold the off-diagonal blocks of $\hat\Sigma$ and compare against a permutation baseline — but the paper offers no distributional theory for such a test, since consistency and asymptotic normality are explicitly left to future work.
Editorial extension: because the estimator is a composite likelihood with plug-in empirical margins, its consistency is plausible but not automatic; a decisive population check is whether the bivariate Bernoulli likelihood has the true $\rho$ as its unique maximizer, since the likelihood surface can be flat for rare events.
Editorial extension: Proposition 3 case (iii) implies a cheap genome-wide screen for rare mutations: estimate $\rho$ from each $2 \times 2$ contingency table alone and read its sign as mutual exclusivity versus implicative ordering, before any network estimation.
Editorial extension: if the true dependence is not a Gaussian copula, $\hat\Sigma$ may still rank dependencies roughly correctly, but the $\pm 1$ characterizations of Proposition 3 would no longer hold; this is testable by simulating from a Clayton or t copula with the same marginals.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: the Bernoulli extreme-value result (Prop 3) is a real contribution, and the pairwise-likelihood idea is sensible, but the estimator as written is degenerate for any pair involving a continuous variable. The raw empirical CDF reaches 1 at the sample maximum, and the Gaussian copula density at (1,v) is 0 for any rho≠0, so the log-likelihood is -inf unless rho=0. That means the reported MSE and ROC results cannot come from Eq. (3) with the stated Fhat. There must be an unstated boundary correction (e.g., (rank-0.5)/n) in the implementation or the heterocop package. This is the central engine of the paper, so the main claim is unverifiable as written.

What is good: Prop 3 gives a clean interpretation of rho=±1 for Bernoulli-continuous and Bernoulli-Bernoulli pairs, which is genuinely new and practically useful for interpreting rare mutation networks. Prop 2 is standard but worth stating. The idea of maximizing a pairwise likelihood with empirical marginals is a natural extension of Mazo et al., and the paper is honest about lacking consistency/asymptotic theory (Discussion).

Other soft spots: proofs are in a supplementary that is referenced only as '??', and there are unresolved '??' references throughout. The real-data analysis has no uncertainty quantification and the biological claims are anecdotal. The simulation study only covers data generated from the model, so misspecification of the copula family is untested. These are secondary to the boundary issue.

Bottom line: the paper is worth a serious referee, but only if the estimator is fixed or clarified. The propositions and the applied motivation can survive a correction. I would not cite it in its current form.

Recommendation: send to peer review with a request that the authors (a) state explicitly how Fhat is modified at the boundary, or prove that the degenerate likelihood has a well-defined maximizer; (b) provide the supplementary proofs; (c) add simulations with a misspecified copula or a comparison to a full likelihood. The paper could be a solid contribution after that.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Gaussian copula model for mixed continuous-discrete multi-omics data, derives the joint density for mixed marginals, proves that a block-diagonal correlation matrix Sigma is equivalent to block-wise independence of the observed variables, and characterizes the extreme values of the bivariate copula parameter when Bernoulli variables are involved. The correlation matrix is estimated by maximizing a semiparametric pairwise likelihood in which marginal CDFs are replaced by raw empirical CDFs. The method is evaluated in simulations and applied to an ICGC breast cancer dataset, and is implemented in the R package heterocop. The central claim is that the proposed procedure accurately estimates the copula correlation matrix and that the resulting network edges have a meaningful dependence interpretation.

Significance. The theoretical parts of the paper are potentially valuable: Proposition 1 provides a density formula for mixed marginals, Proposition 2 gives a clean equivalence between block-diagonal Sigma and mutual independence, and Proposition 3 offers interpretable extreme-value characterizations for Bernoulli-involved pairs. These results, if correct, would give practitioners a principled way to read dependence from a Gaussian copula matrix for mixed data. The pairwise likelihood approach is also computationally appealing for high-dimensional genomic data, and the availability of an R package is a practical contribution. However, the estimation procedure as written has a boundary degeneracy that makes the reported simulation results impossible to reproduce from the stated estimator. Until the estimator is corrected or precisely respecified, the central claim of accurate copula correlation estimation cannot be verified from the manuscript.

major comments (3)

[Section 3, Eq. (3)] The estimator defined in Eq. (3) using raw empirical CDFs is degenerate for any pair involving a continuous variable. Because \hat F_j(X_{(n)})=1 for the largest continuous observation, the density term at that point contains the Gaussian copula density c_rho(1, v) with v<1, or the corresponding integral in the continuous-discrete case. For rho != 0, c_rho(1, v) tends to 0 as Phi^{-1}(1) tends to infinity, so log c_rho(1, v) tends to -infinity; for rho = 0 the density is identically 1 and the log-likelihood is finite. The pairwise objective in Eq. (3) is therefore -infinity at every rho != 0 for every pair containing a continuous variable, forcing the maximizer to hat rho = 0. The manuscript reports nonzero estimates throughout Section 4 (for example, MSE for rho = 0.3, 0.6, 0.8 in Figure 1), which cannot be produced by the estimator as written. No boundary correction such as (rank-0.5)/n, n/(n+1), or a kernel CDF is stated. This is a load-bearing issue for the paper's central claim.
[Section 4.2.2] Because of the boundary degeneracy described above, the reported simulation results are internally inconsistent with the defined estimator. The normalized RMSE and MAE values that decrease to below 5% and the AUC values close to 1 cannot be obtained from Eq. (3) for any pair involving a continuous variable, since the estimator would return zero for all such pairs. Either the heterocop implementation uses a different estimator, or an important boundary correction is missing from the description. The actual objective function used to produce Figure 1, Figure 2, and the ROC results in Figure 3 must be stated precisely; otherwise the numerical evidence cannot verify the accuracy claim.
[Section 6] The Discussion explicitly states that 'Theoretical consistency and asymptotic normality of the estimator could also be studied in a future work.' Thus no convergence result for the pairwise likelihood estimator is provided, and identifiability of Sigma from discrete marginals is not addressed. This would be a less serious issue if the finite-sample simulations were reliable, but in light of the boundary degeneracy the real-data network interpretation in Section 5 rests on an estimator whose statistical properties are unproven and whose definition is not the one used in the numerical work. A revision should either provide a consistency and identifiability argument for a corrected estimator or clearly restrict the claims to the specific implementation used.

minor comments (4)

[Throughout] Numerous references to the supplementary material appear as placeholders ('Section ??', 'Figure ??', 'Table ??'). The proofs of Propositions 1-3 and the numerical tables are therefore not accessible in the posted version; please complete these references and provide the supplementary file.
[Section 4.2.2] The definitions of FNR and FPR appear to be swapped: the sentence 'FNR=1-TNR' describes the false positive rate, while 'FPR=1-TPR' describes the false negative rate. Please correct the terminology and verify that the ROC axes use the standard definitions.
[Section 5.2] The real-data analysis reports point estimates of copula correlations and network edges without confidence intervals, standard errors, or any multiple-testing adjustment. The Discussion mentions future testing, but the practical claims in Section 5.2.2 and 5.2.3 should be phrased more cautiously given the lack of uncertainty quantification.
[Section 4.1] The statement that the variance 'does not seem to be impacted by the types of the variables' is based only on visual inspection of Figure 1. Reporting the numerical MSE, variance, and squared-bias values in a table would make the comparison more convincing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the estimation and theoretical claims are derived from the Gaussian copula model and evaluated against simulations from that same model, with no prediction that reduces by construction to a fitted input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The estimator in Eq. (3) maximizes a pairwise likelihood in which empirical CDFs are substituted into the bivariate density formulas obtained from model (1); no parameter is fitted to the quantity later reported as a prediction. Propositions 2 and 3 are mathematical consequences of the Gaussian copula model, with proofs deferred to the Supplementary material, and they are not restatements of estimated values. The simulation study generates data from model (1) and compares estimates to the true copula correlation matrix, which is standard internal validation rather than circular reasoning. The only author self-citation, Mazo et al. (2024), is used to name the pairwise likelihood framework being extended; it is not load-bearing for the paper's central claims and does not forbid alternatives or supply the main results. The Discussion explicitly states that consistency and asymptotic normality are future work (Section 6), which is a limitation of statistical support but not an input-output identity. One technical verifiability concern, noted for weighting rather than circularity, is that substituting raw empirical CDFs into Eq. (3) can give log-density values of -infinity at sample maxima for continuous-continuous pairs, so the reported nonzero estimates may rely on an undisclosed boundary correction; this affects reproducibility and correctness, not circularity under the defined patterns.

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

The ledger shows that the method introduces no new entities or model parameters beyond the correlation matrix of the Gaussian copula, which is the target of estimation. The numerical results depend on several user-chosen thresholds (ROC threshold, network edge thresholds, hub selection). The main unstated assumptions are identifiability of Sigma with discrete marginals and consistency of the semiparametric pairwise estimator, both of which are central to the validity of the method but are not proven.

free parameters (3)

ROC threshold = 0.3
Chosen arbitrarily in Section 4.2.2 to classify estimated coefficients as zero or nonzero before computing TPR/TNR and AUC; the reported AUC numbers depend on this choice.
Network edge thresholds = 0.4, 0.6, 0.8
Selected for display in Section 5.2.3; the number of detected links and the visual network structure are functions of these thresholds.
Hub selection thresholds = absolute copula > 0.7 and degree > 10
Arbitrary rule in Section 5.2.3 used to pick the four mutations whose genes were checked in the literature.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The observed mixed vector follows a Gaussian copula model (Eq. 1) with some correlation matrix Sigma.
Stated in Section 2 and used throughout; the method estimates Sigma under this model, and if the true dependence departs from a Gaussian copula, the estimated correlations may not represent the actual associations.
ad hoc to paper Sigma is identifiable from the mixed discrete-continuous distribution.
Assumed implicitly in Section 3 when maximizing the pairwise likelihood; no proof is given that a unique Sigma is determined when marginals are discrete, which is a known subtlety for copulas with discrete variables.
domain assumption Plugging empirical CDFs into the pairwise likelihood yields an estimator with negligible bias for the copula parameters.
Section 3 replaces each marginal CDF by its empirical version; consistency and asymptotic normality are not proven and are left to future work in Section 6.
domain assumption Pairwise likelihood is a valid surrogate for the full likelihood for this model.
Equation (3) maximizes a composite likelihood; the paper does not justify this choice theoretically for mixed data, only empirically.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gaussian copula correlation network analysis with application to multi-omics data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2DWPPVY2

@misc{pith2026250608586,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gaussian copula correlation network analysis with application to multi-omics data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2DWPPVY2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08586}
}

read the original abstract

Reconstructing gene regulatory networks from large-scale heterogeneous data is a key challenge in biology. In multi-omics data analysis, networks based on pairwise statistical association measures remain popular, as they are easy to build and understand. In the presence of mixed-type (discrete and continuous) data, however, the choice of good association measures remains an important issue. We propose here a novel approach based on the Gaussian copula, the parameters of which represent the links of the network. Novel properties of the model are obtained to guide the interpretation of the network. To estimate the copula parameters, we calculated a semiparametric pairwise likelihood for mixed data. In an extensive simulation study, we showed that the proposed estimation procedure was able to accurately estimate the copula correlation matrix. The proposed methodology was also applied to a real ICGC dataset on breast cancer, and is implemented in a freely available R package heterocop.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08586 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Boxplot of 50 estimates, each based on a sample of size 100, of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Average ROC curves for N = 500 simulations for the classification of the estimates of the copula correlation coefficients for different sample sizes. Four different sparse matrices were considered for d = 30 variables (block-wise and sparse matrices with sparsity γF = 0.2, 0.5, 0.8). A matrix with sparsity γF = 0.8 was considered for d = 300 variables. 5 Application on real data We applied the proposed methodology t… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Copula correlation coefficient versus Spearman or Kendall coeffi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Number of detected links by the copula, Spearman, and Kendall [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Copula correlation coefficient network for different threshold values. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[1]

Cusan, G

M. Cusan, G. Mungo, M. De Marco Zompit, I. Segatto, B. Belletti, and G. Baldassarre. Landscape of CDKN1B mutations in luminal breast cancer and other hormone-driven human tumors. Frontiers in Endocrinology, 9: 0 393, 2018

work page 2018
[2]

Dey and V

D. Dey and V. Zipunnikov. Semiparametric gaussian copula regression modeling for mixed data types (sgcrm). arXiv:2205.06868 [stat], 2022

work page arXiv 2022
[3]

J. Fan, H. Liu, Y. Ning, and H. Zou. High dimensional semiparametric latent graphical model for mixed data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 79 0 (2): 0 405--421, 2017

work page 2017
[4]

M. Itoh, D. Radisky, M. Hashiguchi, and H. Sugimoto. The exon 38-containing ARHGEF11 splice isoform is differentially expressed and is required for migration and growth in invasive breast cancer cells. Oncotarget, 8: 0 92157--92170, 2017

work page 2017
[5]

M. G. Kendall. The Treatment of Ties in Ranking Problems . Biometrika, 33 0 (3): 0 239--251, 1945. ISSN 0006-3444. doi:10.2307/2332303. URL https://www.jstor.org/stable/2332303. Publisher: [Oxford University Press, Biometrika Trust]

work page arXiv 1945
[6]

Langfelder and S

P. Langfelder and S. Horvath. WGCNA : an R package for weighted correlation network analysis. BMC Bioinformatics, 9: 0 559, 2008

work page 2008
[7]

H. Liu, J. Lafferty, and L. Wasserman. The nonparanormal: Semiparametric estimation of high dimensional undirected graphs. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 10: 0 2295--2328, 2009

work page 2009
[8]

X. Liu, J. Zhang, Z. Wang, M. Yan, M. Xu, G. Li, V. Shender, J. Wei, J. Li, C. Shao, S. Zhang, B. Kong, K. Sun, and Z. Liu. Splicing factor PQBP1 curtails BAX expression to promote ovarian cancer progression. Advanced Science, 11: 0 e2306229, 2024

work page 2024

Show all 20 references

[9]

M. Love, W. Huber, and S. Anders. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA -seq data with DES eq2. Genome Biology, 15: 0 550, 2014

2014
[10]

G. Mazo, D. Karlis, and A. Rau. A randomized pairwise likelihood method for complex statistical inferences. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 119 0 (547): 0 2317--2327, 2024

2024
[11]

Mesfioui, J

M. Mesfioui, J. Trufin, and P. Zuyderhoff. Bound on S pearman's rho when at least one random variable is discrete. European Actuarial Journal, 12: 0 321--348, 2022

2022
[12]

R. Nelsen. An Introduction to Copulas. Springer Series in Statistics. Springer New York, 2007

2007
[13]

Nešlehová

J. Nešlehová. On rank correlation measures for non-continuous random variables. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 98 0 (3): 0 544--567, 2007

2007
[14]

Rainer, L

J. Rainer, L. Gatto, and C. Weichenberger. ensembldb: an R package to create and use ensembl-based annotation resources. Bioinformatics, 35: 0 3151--3153, 2019

2019
[15]

A. Sklar. Random variables, joint distribution functions, and copulas. Kybernetika, 09 0 (6): 0 449--460, 1973

1973
[16]

P. Song. Correlated data analysis: modeling, analytics, and applications. Springer, 2007

2007
[17]

L. Yan, J. He, X. Liao, T. Liang, J. Zhu, W. Wei, Y. He, X. Zhou, and T. Peng. A comprehensive analysis of the diagnostic and prognostic value associated with the SLC7A family members in breast cancer. Gland surgery, 11: 0 389--411, 2022

2022
[18]

Zhang, R

J. Zhang, R. Bajari, and A. D. The international cancer genome consortium data portal. Nature Biotechnoogy., 37: 0 367--369, 2019

2019
[19]

S. I. Resnick. Extreme Values, Regular Variation, and Point Processes. Springer, 1987

1987
[20]

G.-C. Rota. On the foundations of combinatorial theory i. Z. Wahrseheinlichkeitstheorie, 2: 0 340--368, 1964

1964

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Cusan, G

M. Cusan, G. Mungo, M. De Marco Zompit, I. Segatto, B. Belletti, and G. Baldassarre. Landscape of CDKN1B mutations in luminal breast cancer and other hormone-driven human tumors. Frontiers in Endocrinology, 9: 0 393, 2018

work page 2018

[2] [2]

Dey and V

D. Dey and V. Zipunnikov. Semiparametric gaussian copula regression modeling for mixed data types (sgcrm). arXiv:2205.06868 [stat], 2022

work page arXiv 2022

[3] [3]

J. Fan, H. Liu, Y. Ning, and H. Zou. High dimensional semiparametric latent graphical model for mixed data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 79 0 (2): 0 405--421, 2017

work page 2017

[4] [4]

M. Itoh, D. Radisky, M. Hashiguchi, and H. Sugimoto. The exon 38-containing ARHGEF11 splice isoform is differentially expressed and is required for migration and growth in invasive breast cancer cells. Oncotarget, 8: 0 92157--92170, 2017

work page 2017

[5] [5]

M. G. Kendall. The Treatment of Ties in Ranking Problems . Biometrika, 33 0 (3): 0 239--251, 1945. ISSN 0006-3444. doi:10.2307/2332303. URL https://www.jstor.org/stable/2332303. Publisher: [Oxford University Press, Biometrika Trust]

work page arXiv 1945

[6] [6]

Langfelder and S

P. Langfelder and S. Horvath. WGCNA : an R package for weighted correlation network analysis. BMC Bioinformatics, 9: 0 559, 2008

work page 2008

[7] [7]

H. Liu, J. Lafferty, and L. Wasserman. The nonparanormal: Semiparametric estimation of high dimensional undirected graphs. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 10: 0 2295--2328, 2009

work page 2009

[8] [8]

X. Liu, J. Zhang, Z. Wang, M. Yan, M. Xu, G. Li, V. Shender, J. Wei, J. Li, C. Shao, S. Zhang, B. Kong, K. Sun, and Z. Liu. Splicing factor PQBP1 curtails BAX expression to promote ovarian cancer progression. Advanced Science, 11: 0 e2306229, 2024

work page 2024