Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 66 references

CoMMiT: Co-informed inference of microbiome-metabolome interactions via transfer learning

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Within-cohort transfer learning finds microbe-metabolite links that other methods miss.

desk verdict CoMMiT's projection-based transfer assumption is a real advance, but the real-data p-values are not covered by the theory because the auxiliary set is selected using the target outcome. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.24013 v1 pith:FZH7Y6MF submitted 2025-06-30 stat.ME q-bio.GNstat.AP

Leiyue Li , Chenglong Ye , Tim Randolph , Meredith Hullar , Johanna Lampe , Marian Neuhouser , Daniel Raftery , Yue Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MEq-bio.GNstat.AP MSC 62J0762P10
keywords microbiome-metabolomeinteractionstransferlearninghigh-dimensionalinferencedebiasedLassoprojection-basedsimilaritybileacids
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 proposes CoMMiT, a transfer-learning method that borrows information across metabolites within a single paired microbiome-metabolome dataset. The goal is to identify microbe-metabolite associations in small samples by allowing auxiliary metabolites to be collectively informative, rather than each being individually informative. If correct, CoMMiT will recover associations that standard high-dimensional methods miss, as it does in the CARB study where it finds Lachnoclostridium and Streptococcus associated with UDCA after false-discovery correction.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the projection-based similarity assumption (3): $\|\beta^{(0)} - \sum_{j=1}^J \alpha_j \beta^{(j)}\|_1 \le h$. This allows the target coefficient to be close to the linear span of auxiliary coefficients. The method proceeds by Lasso-fitting each auxiliary model, estimating $\alpha_j$ and a sparse $w$, then debiasing the combined estimator with node-wise regressions.

What would settle it

Re-analyze the CARB data with sample splitting: select auxiliary bile acids on a training half, then run de-biased inference on a test half. If no microbes survive FDR 0.05, the real-data discoveries are an artifact of selection.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

CoMMiT's core discovery is that projecting the target regression coefficient onto the span of auxiliary coefficient vectors yields power even when no single auxiliary vector is informative. The estimator combines fitted auxiliary coefficients with a sparse residual, and a debiasing step provides asymptotic confidence intervals for individual associations. In simulations it has lower mean-squared error and higher power than Lasso, Ridge, Trans-Lasso, and Angle-TL, and in the CARB study it identifies significant microbes other methods miss.

Load-bearing premise

The validity of the reported p-values assumes the auxiliary metabolite set is pre-specified, but in the real-data application it is selected using the target outcome.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • CoMMiT can be used routinely in PM2S studies to boost power without relying on external datasets.
  • Its prediction component allows metabolite imputation for samples with only microbiome data.
  • The theoretical trade-off between $J$ and $h$ makes auxiliary-set selection a formal part of the inference procedure.
  • The method extends naturally to other pairs of omics layers with shared latent structure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The real-data analysis likely overstates significance because the auxiliary set is chosen using the outcome, so split-sample validation would be needed to transfer the theoretical guarantees to the discoveries.
  • A formal information-score comparison could replace the current marginal-correlation selection, potentially improving the transfer strength.
  • The within-cohort transfer principle could help other small-sample multi-omics studies avoid negative transfer from heterogeneous external datasets.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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. The paper proposes CoMMiT, a within-cohort transfer learning method for detecting microbiome–metabolite associations in a high-dimensional linear model. The target coefficient is assumed to be close to the span of auxiliary metabolite coefficients (projection similarity, Eq. (3)). Estimation proceeds by fitting Lasso regressions for each auxiliary metabolite, then regressing the target on the fitted auxiliary components plus a sparse residual, and finally debiasing the combined estimator (Eqs. (7)–(13)). The paper provides convergence rates (Theorem 3.1), an asymptotic debiased-inference result (Theorem 3.2), a heuristic data-driven auxiliary-set selection procedure (Section 3.4), simulations, and an application to the CARB study identifying microbes associated with UDCA and TUDCA.

Significance. CoMMiT addresses a real need: detecting weak multivariate microbiome–metabolite associations in small-n high-dimensional studies. The projection-based similarity assumption is genuinely more flexible than requiring each auxiliary metabolite to be individually informative, and the within-cohort transfer setup avoids many external-data heterogeneity concerns. The paper is clearly written and includes simulations comparing CoMMiT with Lasso, Ridge, Trans-Lasso, and Angle-TL. If the inference guarantees were extended to the actual analysis pipeline, the method would be a useful addition to the multi-omics toolkit. However, the current manuscript's headline real-data findings are not covered by the stated theory: the auxiliary set is selected using the target outcome, and the debiased estimator's coverage ignores the variability of the estimated combination coefficients. The authors themselves flag the selection as heuristic in the title of Section 3.4 and in the Discussion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.4 / Section 5] The auxiliary-metabolite selection procedure in Section 3.4 uses the target outcome y(0) twice: the microbial-correlation screening step defines bρj via r0k = dCor(y(0), x_k), and the cross-validation step selects m that minimizes prediction MSE for y(0). Inference on β(0) in Section 5 then treats the selected auxiliary set as fixed, so the p-values and the FDR 0.05 claims for Lachnoclostridium and Streptococcus are not governed by the guarantees in Theorem 3.2. Because the selection is explicitly labeled heuristic (Section 3.4 heading; Section 6 concession that a formal evaluation of the microbial correlation is lacking), this is an internal mismatch between the theory and the applied pipeline. Please pre-specify the auxiliary set from independent biological knowledge, separate selection from inference by sample splitting, or supply selection-adjusted inference; otherwise the real-data significance claims should be presented as exploratory.
  2. [Equation (13) and Theorem 3.2] The debiased estimator bβ(0)_de in (13) is a linear combination of debiased auxiliary estimates bβ(j)_de and bw_de with coefficients bα estimated from the same data in Step 2 (Eq. (8)). Neither the tail bound nor the confidence interval in Theorem 3.2 accounts for the stochastic error in bα or for the dependence between bα and the debiasing residuals used to construct bβ(j)_de and bw_de. The stated conditions (A, B, C and the bound on h) do not include conditions on the estimation error of α, so the nominal coverage of the reported intervals is not established for the estimator actually implemented. Please either prove that the α-estimation error is asymptotically negligible under the existing conditions, or extend the theorem to the joint distribution of (bα, {bβ(j)_de}, bw_de).
  3. [Theorem 3.2 (supplementary material)] The proof of Theorem 3.2 is deferred to a supplement that was not included with the manuscript. Since this theorem is the sole theoretical basis for the real-data p-values, please include the supplement or provide a proof sketch in the main text, making explicit how the projection error in assumption (3) and the debiasing remainder in (12) are controlled. Without this, the central inference claim cannot be checked.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1.3] In the definition of the Frobenius norm, the entry index is inconsistent: 'm^2_ij' should be 'm^2_il'.
  2. [Theorem 3.1] The rate expression 'Op(Js* log p/n + sqrt(log p/n) h ^ h^2)' is ambiguous; please clarify the operation denoted by '^' and the parentheses, for example whether the minimum is taken over sqrt(log p/n) h and h^2 or over h and h^2.
  3. [Theorem 3.2] The notation Ftn and τ_l is not defined in the theorem statement; please define these quantities (e.g., Ftn as the t-distribution with n degrees of freedom, and τ_l as in the definition immediately preceding). Also state how σ̂0 is obtained in the theorem.
  4. [Section 5] The phrase 'LDPE's higher statistical lower over Ridge' should read 'LDPE's higher statistical power over Ridge'.
  5. [Section 3.4] The p-values bp_j associated with bρ_j are not defined; please specify the null hypothesis and the test statistic used to compute them.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Real-data significance is not covered by Theorem 3.2: Section 3.4 selects auxiliary metabolites using the target outcome, then CoMMiT's p-values treat the set as fixed.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.4 (auxiliary selection), applied in Section 5 (CARB UDCA/TUDCA analyses); Theorem 3.2 assumes the set is pre-specified]
    "In the CoMMiT estimation and inference procedures, we assume the auxiliary metabolites satisfying (3) are pre-specified. ... We first calculate the correlation between the j-th metabolite and the k-th microbe rjk = dCor(y(j), xk) for j = 0, 1, . . . , q ... define the 'microbial correlation' bρj between the y(0) and y(j) as the correlation between {r0k}p k=1 and {rjk}p k=1 ... Find mopt = argmin_m MSE_m, and obtain the optimal set of informative metabolites Imopt. [Section 5:] leveraging auxiliary bile acids selected by the proposed method in Section 3.4."

    The optimal auxiliary set is itself a function of the target outcome y(0): the screening scores bρj use dCor(y(0), xk), and the cross-validation step chooses mopt by minimizing CoMMiT's prediction MSE for y(0). Section 5 then uses that same selected set to compute debiased p-values for associations between microbes and UDCA/TUDCA, i.e. the same y(0). Theorem 3.2's tail bound is stated for a fixed model with pre-specified auxiliary metabolites and gives no accounting for this selection step; no nested or selection-adjusted procedure is provided. Hence the real-data p-values and FDR discoveries (e.g., Lachnoclostridium, Streptococcus) are not covered by the theoretical guarantee and are reported as if the selected set were fixed.

full rationale

The mathematical core of the paper is self-contained: Theorem 3.1 and Theorem 3.2 are stated for fixed auxiliary models, and the projection-based similarity (3) is an explicit assumption rather than a derived conclusion. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem; the comparisons to Lasso, Ridge, Trans-Lasso, and Angle-TL are standard empirical benchmarks. The circularity is confined to the real-data pipeline. Section 3.4 selects the auxiliary metabolite set using the target outcome: first through the distance correlations dCor(y(0), xk) entering bρj, and then through cross-validation of CoMMiT's prediction error for y(0). Section 5 applies the debiased inference procedure to the same y(0) using that selected set, yet Theorem 3.2 assumes the auxiliary metabolites are pre-specified and does not adjust for selection. Therefore the reported p-values and FDR 0.05 discoveries for UDCA and TUDCA are not justified by the theorem, and the analysis is partially circular: an input to the inference is fitted to the very outcome being tested. This is a real limitation acknowledged only indirectly in the Discussion, where the authors note that 'A formal evaluation of this microbial correlation is thus of interest.'

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard high-dimensional assumptions (sparsity, restricted eigenvalues) plus the paper-specific projection assumption (3). The data-driven auxiliary selection introduces additional ad hoc thresholds and uses the outcome variable, which is the main source of inferential circularity.

free parameters (6)
  • c_j = not reported
    Tuning constants for auxiliary Lasso in (7), lambda_j = c_j sqrt(log p/n). Chosen in practice by cross-validation; values not reported.
  • c
    Tuning constant for Lasso on w in (8).
  • zeta_l
    Tuning constants for nodewise regressions in (11).
  • lambda_nat
    Tuning parameter for the natural lasso estimator of sigma_0^2.
  • r0, p0 = r0=0.5, p0=0.05 or 0.01
    Thresholds for the auxiliary metabolite selection step in Section 3.4; chosen by hand.
  • h
    Projection error bound in the model assumption (3); not estimated, but the convergence rate depends on it.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Linear models y(j) = x^T beta(j) + eps(j) with zero conditional mean and constant conditional variance for all j
    The target and auxiliary models in equations (1) and (2) are linear with E[eps|x]=0 and E[eps^2|x]=sigma^2.
  • domain assumption Sparsity: ||w||_0 <= sw and ||beta(j)||_0 <= sj for all j
    Assumption A in Section 3.2; the method only works if the true coefficients and the correction term are sparse.
  • standard math Sparse Riesz Condition (SRC) on the design matrix
    Assumption B in Section 3.2, a restricted eigenvalue-type condition from Zhang and Huang (2008).
  • standard math Bounded bias factor eta_l (Condition C)
    Required for the debiasing step in Section 3.3; standard in nodewise regression analyses.
  • ad hoc to paper Projection similarity (3): beta(0) is close to the span of beta(j)'s
    This is the key modeling assumption that enables within-cohort transfer; it is not derived from data or prior literature.
  • ad hoc to paper Microbial correlation selects informative metabolites from marginal associations
    The heuristic in Section 3.4 is acknowledged in the Discussion to be based on marginal correlations, not conditional ones.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CoMMiT: Co-informed inference of microbiome-metabolome interactions via transfer learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FZH7Y6MF

@misc{pith2026250624013,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CoMMiT: Co-informed inference of microbiome-metabolome interactions via transfer learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FZH7Y6MF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.24013}
}
read the original abstract

Recent multi-omic microbiome studies enable integrative analysis of microbes and metabolites, uncovering their associations with various host conditions. Such analyses require multivariate models capable of accounting for the complex correlation structures between microbes and metabolites. However, existing multivariate models often suffer from low statistical power for detecting microbiome-metabolome interactions due to small sample sizes and weak biological signals. To address these challenges, we introduce CoMMiT, Co-informed inference of Microbiome-Metabolome Interactions via novel Transfer learning models. Unlike conventional transfer-learning methods that borrow information from external datasets, CoMMiT leverages similarities across metabolites within a single cohort, reducing the risk of negative transfer often caused by differences in sequencing platforms and bioinformatic pipelines across studies. CoMMiT operates under the flexible assumption that auxiliary metabolites are collectively informative for the target metabolite, without requiring individual auxiliary metabolites to be informative. CoMMiT uses a novel data-driven approach to selecting the optimal set of auxiliary metabolites. Using this optimal set, CoMMiT employs a de-biasing framework to enable efficient calculation of p-values, facilitating the identification of statistically significant microbiome-metabolome interactions. Applying CoMMiT to a feeding study reveals biologically meaningful microbiome-metabolome interactions under a low glycemic load diet, demonstrating the diet-host link through gut metabolism.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.24013 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (A) Microbiome-metabolome correlation heatmap: displays the correlations be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (A): An illustration of the proposed projection-based similarity with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Boxplots of the mean squared error (A) and (B) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Volcano plots of the − log10(p value) (y-axis) and regression coefficients (x-axis) showing the association between microbes and UDCA using univariate linear regression (A), LDPE (B), Ridge-based inference (C), CoMMiT (D), and Trans-lasso (E). The dashed vertical and h…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Volcano plots of the − log10( p value) (y-axis) and regression coefficients (x-axis) showing the association between microbes and TUDCA using univariate linear regression (A), LDPE (B), Ridge-based inference (C), CoMMiT (D), and Trans-lasso (E). The dashed vertical and…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aitchison, J. (1982). The statistical analysis of compositional data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological)\/ 44\/ (2), 139--160

    work page 1982

  2. [2]

    Mukherji, and A

    Ajouz, H., D. Mukherji, and A. Shamseddine (2014). Secondary bile acids: an underrecognized cause of colon cancer. World journal of surgical oncology\/ 12\/ (1), 1--5

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Bastani, H. (2021). Predicting with proxies: Transfer learning in high dimension. Management Science\/ 67\/ (5), 2964--2984

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    B \"u hlmann, P. (2013). Statistical significance in high-dimensional linear models. Bernoulli\/ 19\/ (4), 1212--1242

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Cai, T. T. and H. Wei (2021). Transfer learning for nonparametric classification: Minimax rate and adaptive classifier. The Annals of Statistics\/ 49\/ (1), 100--128

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Candes, E. and T. Tao (2007). The D antzig selector: Statistical estimation when p is much larger than n . The Annals of Statistics\/ 35\/ (6), 2313--2351

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    Caporaso, J. G., J. Kuczynski, J. Stombaugh, K. Bittinger, F. D. Bushman, E. K. Costello, N. Fierer, A. G. Pena, J. K. Goodrich, J. I. Gordon, et al. (2010). Qiime allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nature methods\/ 7\/ (5), 335--336

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Billington, I

    Caspi, R., R. Billington, I. M. Keseler, A. Kothari, M. Krummenacker, P. E. Midford, W. K. Ong, S. Paley, P. Subhraveti, and P. D. Karp (2020). The metacyc database of metabolic pathways and enzymes-a 2019 update. Nucleic acids research\/ 48\/ (D1), D445--D453

    work page 2020

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    Centuori, S. M. and J. D. Martinez (2014). Differential regulation of egfr--mapk signaling by deoxycholic acid (dca) and ursodeoxycholic acid (udca) in colon cancer. Digestive diseases and sciences\/ 59 , 2367--2380

    2014

  2. [10]

    Chen, S., J. Kang, Y. Xing, Y. Zhao, and D. K. Milton (2018). Estimating large covariance matrix with network topology for high-dimensional biomedical data. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis\/ 127 , 82--95

    2018

  3. [11]

    Consortium, I. H. R. N. (2019). The integrative human microbiome project. Nature\/ 569\/ (7758), 641--648

    2019

  4. [12]

    Consortium, T. H. M. P. (2012). Structure, function and diversity of the healthy human microbiome. nature\/ 486\/ (7402), 207--214

    2012

  5. [13]

    Guo, and N

    Fan, J., S. Guo, and N. Hao (2012). Variance estimation using refitted cross-validation in ultrahigh dimensional regression. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology)\/ 74\/ (1), 37--65

    2012

  6. [14]

    Nangia-Makker, E

    Farhana, L., P. Nangia-Makker, E. Arbit, K. Shango, S. Sarkar, H. Mahmud, T. Hadden, Y. Yu, and A. P. Majumdar (2016). Bile acid: a potential inducer of colon cancer stem cells. Stem Cell Research & Therapy\/ 7\/ (1), 1--10

    2016

  7. [15]

    Ginos, B. N., S. L. Navarro, Y. Schwarz, H. Gu, D. Wang, T. W. Randolph, A. Shojaie, M. A. Hullar, P. D. Lampe, M. Kratz, et al. (2018). Circulating bile acids in healthy adults respond differently to a dietary pattern characterized by whole grains, legumes and fruits and vege...

    2018

  8. [16]

    Han, and R

    Gu, T., Y. Han, and R. Duan (2024). Robust angle-based transfer learning in high dimensions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology\/ , qkae111

    2024

  9. [17]

    Guo, Z., X. Li, L. Han, and T. C. and (2025). Robust inference for federated meta-learning. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 0\/ (0), 1--16

    2025

  10. [18]

    Guo, Z., W. Wang, T. T. Cai, and H. Li (2019). Optimal estimation of genetic relatedness in high-dimensional linear models. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 114\/ (525), 358--369

    2019

  11. [19]

    Hoerl, A. E. and R. W. Kennard (1970). Ridge regression: Biased estimation for nonorthogonal problems. Technometrics\/ 12\/ (1), 55--67

    1970

  12. [20]

    Hooper, L. V., D. R. Littman, and A. J. Macpherson (2012). Interactions between the microbiota and the immune system. science\/ 336\/ (6086), 1268--1273

    2012

  13. [21]

    Im, E. and J. D. Martinez (2004). Ursodeoxycholic acid (udca) can inhibit deoxycholic acid (dca)-induced apoptosis via modulation of egfr/raf-1/erk signaling in human colon cancer cells. The Journal of nutrition\/ 134\/ (2), 483--486

    2004

  14. [22]

    Jandhyala, S. M., R. Talukdar, C. Subramanyam, H. Vuyyuru, M. Sasikala, and D. N. Reddy (2015). Role of the normal gut microbiota. World journal of gastroenterology: WJG\/ 21\/ (29), 8787

    2015

  15. [23]

    Jiang, D., C. R. Armour, C. Hu, M. Mei, C. Tian, T. J. Sharpton, and Y. Jiang (2019). Microbiome multi-omics network analysis: statistical considerations, limitations, and opportunities. Frontiers in genetics\/ 10 , 995

    2019

  16. [24]

    Tornese, A

    Khalaf, K., P. Tornese, A. Cocco, and A. Albanese (2022). Tauroursodeoxycholic acid: a potential therapeutic tool in neurodegenerative diseases. Translational Neurodegeneration\/ 11\/ (1), 1--17

    2022

  17. [25]

    Lajczak-McGinley, N. K., E. Porru, C. M. Fallon, J. Smyth, C. Curley, P. A. McCarron, M. M. Tambuwala, A. Roda, and S. J. Keely (2020). The secondary bile acids, ursodeoxycholic acid and lithocholic acid, protect against intestinal inflammation by inhibition of epithelial apop...

    2020

  18. [26]

    Langmead, B. and S. L. Salzberg (2012). Fast gapped-read alignment with bowtie 2. Nature methods\/ 9\/ (4), 357--359

    2012

  19. [27]

    Cai, and H

    Li, S., T. Cai, and H. Li (2021). Transfer learning for high-dimensional linear regression: Prediction, estimation and minimax optimality. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B\/ 84\/ (1), 149--173

    2021

  20. [28]

    Li, S., T. T. Cai, and H. Li (2020). Transfer learning for high-dimensional linear regression: Prediction, estimation, and minimax optimality. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.10593\/

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Li, S., T. T. Cai, and H. Li (2022). Transfer learning for high-dimensional linear regression: Prediction, estimation and minimax optimality. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology\/ 84\/ (1), 149--173

    2022

  22. [30]

    Zhang, T

    Li, S., L. Zhang, T. T. Cai, and H. L. and (2024). Estimation and inference for high-dimensional generalized linear models with knowledge transfer. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 119\/ (546), 1274--1285

    2024

  23. [31]

    Liu, J., Y. Tan, H. Cheng, D. Zhang, W. Feng, and C. Peng (2022). Functions of gut microbiota metabolites, current status and future perspectives. Aging and disease\/ 13\/ (4), 1106

    2022

  24. [32]

    Mallick, H., E. A. Franzosa, L. J. Mclver, S. Banerjee, A. Sirota-Madi, A. D. Kostic, C. B. Clish, H. Vlamakis, R. J. Xavier, and C. Huttenhower (2019). Predictive metabolomic profiling of microbial communities using amplicon or metagenomic sequences. Nature communications\/ 1...

    2019

  25. [33]

    Muller, E., Y. M. Algavi, and E. Borenstein (2022). The gut microbiome-metabolome dataset collection: a curated resource for integrative meta-analysis. npj Biofilms and Microbiomes\/ 8\/ (1), 79

    2022

  26. [34]

    Munoz-Garrido, P., J. J. Marin, M. J. Perugorria, A. D. Urribarri, O. Erice, E. S \'a ez, M. \'U riz, S. Sarvide, A. Portu, A. R. Concepcion, et al. (2015). Ursodeoxycholic acid inhibits hepatic cystogenesis in experimental models of polycystic liver disease. Journal of hepato...

    2015

  27. [35]

    Neuhouser, M. L., Y. Schwarz, C. Wang, K. Breymeyer, G. Coronado, C.-Y. Wang, K. Noar, X. Song, and J. W. Lampe (2012). A low-glycemic load diet reduces serum c-reactive protein and modestly increases adiponectin in overweight and obese adults. The Journal of nutrition\/ 142\/...

    2012

  28. [36]

    Nguyen, Q. P., M. R. Karagas, J. C. Madan, E. Dade, T. J. Palys, H. G. Morrison, W. W. Pathmasiri, S. McRitche, S. J. Sumner, H. R. Frost, et al. (2021). Associations between the gut microbiome and metabolome in early life. BMC microbiology\/ 21\/ (1), 238

    2021

  29. [37]

    Niu, S., Y. Liu, J. Wang, and H. Song (2020). A decade survey of transfer learning (2010--2020). IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence\/ 1\/ (2), 151--166

    2020

  30. [38]

    Pan, S. J. and Q. Yang (2009). A survey on transfer learning. IEEE Transactions on knowledge and data engineering\/ 22\/ (10), 1345--1359

    2009

  31. [39]

    Raftery, D. (2016). Mass spectrometry in metabolomics . Springer

    2016

  32. [40]

    Randolph, T. W., S. Zhao, W. Copeland, M. Hullar, and A. Shojaie (2018). Kernel-penalized regression for analysis of microbiome data. The annals of applied statistics\/ 12\/ (1), 540

    2018

  33. [41]

    Raskutti, G., M. J. Wainwright, and B. Yu (2011). Minimax rates of estimation for high-dimensional linear regression over _q -balls. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory\/ 57\/ (10), 6976--6994

    2011

  34. [42]

    Reiman, D., B. T. Layden, and Y. Dai (2021). Mimenet: Exploring microbiome-metabolome relationships using neural networks. PLoS computational biology\/ 17\/ (5), e1009021

    2021

  35. [43]

    Rigollet, P. and A. Tsybakov (2011). Exponential screening and optimal rates of sparse estimation . The Annals of Statistics\/ 39\/ (2), 731--771

    2011

  36. [44]

    Sarafian, M. H., M. R. Lewis, A. Pechlivanis, S. Ralphs, M. J. McPhail, V. C. Patel, M.-E. Dumas, E. Holmes, and J. K. Nicholson (2015). Bile acid profiling and quantification in biofluids using ultra-performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. Analytical chemi...

    2015

  37. [45]

    Zhang, and H

    Shi, P., A. Zhang, and H. Li (2016). Regression analysis for microbiome compositional data. Annals of Applied Statistics\/

    2016

  38. [46]

    Song, Z., Y. Cai, X. Lao, X. Wang, X. Lin, Y. Cui, P. K. Kalavagunta, J. Liao, L. Jin, J. Shang, et al. (2019). Taxonomic profiling and populational patterns of bacterial bile salt hydrolase (bsh) genes based on worldwide human gut microbiome. Microbiome\/ 7 , 1--16

    2019

  39. [47]

    and C.-H

    Sun, T. and C.-H. Zhang (2012). Scaled sparse linear regression. Biometrika\/ 99\/ (4), 879--898

    2012

  40. [48]

    Tian, Y. and Y. Feng (2022). Transfer learning under high-dimensional generalized linear models. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ , 1--14

    2022

  41. [49]

    Tian, Y. and Y. Feng (2023). Transfer learning under high-dimensional generalized linear models. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 118\/ (544), 2684--2697

    2023

  42. [50]

    Tibshirani, R. (1996). Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological)\/ 58\/ (1), 267--288

    1996

  43. [51]

    Jin, and M

    Tripuraneni, N., C. Jin, and M. Jordan (2021). Provable meta-learning of linear representations. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pp.\ 10434--10443. PMLR

    2021

  44. [52]

    Valdes, A. M., J. Walter, E. Segal, and T. D. Spector (2018). Role of the gut microbiota in nutrition and health. Bmj\/ 361

    2018

  45. [53]

    Bühlmann, Y

    van de Geer, S., P. Bühlmann, Y. Ritov, and R. Dezeure (2014). On asymptotically optimal confidence regions and tests for high-dimensional models. The Annals of Statistics\/ 42\/ (3), 1166--1202

    2014

  46. [54]

    Longley, C

    Vang, S., K. Longley, C. J. Steer, and W. C. Low (2014). The unexpected uses of urso-and tauroursodeoxycholic acid in the treatment of non-liver diseases. Global advances in health and medicine\/ 3\/ (3), 58--69

    2014

  47. [55]

    Visconti, A., C. I. Le Roy, F. Rosa, N. Rossi, T. C. Martin, R. P. Mohney, W. Li, E. de Rinaldis, J. T. Bell, J. C. Venter, et al. (2019). Interplay between the human gut microbiome and host metabolism. Nature communications\/ 10\/ (1), 4505

    2019

  48. [56]

    Shojaie, T

    Wang, Y., A. Shojaie, T. Randolph, P. Knight, and J. Ma (2023). Generalized matrix decomposition regression: Estimation and inference for two-way structured data. The Annals of Applied Statistics\/ 17\/ (4), 2944--2969

    2023

  49. [57]

    Weiss, K., T. M. Khoshgoftaar, and D. Wang (2016). A survey of transfer learning. Journal of Big Data\/ 3\/ (1), 1--40

    2016

  50. [58]

    Xia, F., J. Chen, W. K. Fung, and H. Li (2013). A logistic normal multinomial regression model for microbiome compositional data analysis. Biometrics\/ 69\/ (4), 1053--1063

    2013

  51. [59]

    Yu, G. and J. Bien (2019). Estimating the error variance in a high-dimensional linear model. Biometrika\/ 106\/ (3), 533--546

    2019

  52. [60]

    Zhang, L

    Yu, J., H. Zhang, L. Chen, Y. Ruan, Y. Chen, and Q. Liu (2021). Disease-associated gut microbiota reduces the profile of secondary bile acids in pediatric nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology\/ 11 , 698852

    2021

  53. [61]

    Zhang, C.-H. and J. Huang (2008). The sparsity and bias of the L asso selection in high-dimensional linear regression. The Annals of Statistics\/ 36\/ (4), 1567--1594

    2008

  54. [62]

    Zhang, C. H. and S. S. Zhang (2014). Confidence intervals for low dimensional parameters in high dimensional linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology)\/ 76 , 217--242

    2014

  55. [63]

    Zhang, T. (2010). Analysis of multi-stage convex relaxation for sparse regularization. Journal of Machine Learning Research\/ 11 , 1081--1107

    2010

  56. [64]

    Zhao, N., J. Chen, I. M. Carroll, T. Ringel-Kulka, M. P. Epstein, H. Zhou, J. J. Zhou, Y. Ringel, H. Li, and M. C. Wu (2015). Testing in microbiome-profiling studies with mirkat, the microbiome regression-based kernel association test. The American Journal of Human Genetics\/ ...

    2015

  57. [65]

    Zhong, X., P. Cui, J. Jiang, C. Ning, B. Liang, J. Zhou, L. Tian, Y. Zhang, T. Lei, T. Zuo, et al. (2021). Streptococcus, the predominant bacterium to predict the severity of liver injury in alcoholic liver disease. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology\/ 11 , 649060

    2021

  58. [66]

    Zhuang, F., Z. Qi, K. Duan, D. Xi, Y. Zhu, H. Zhu, H. Xiong, and Q. He (2020). A comprehensive survey on transfer learning. Proceedings of the IEEE\/ 109\/ (1), 43--76

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.