-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
predict_single_sample_DLBCLone #28
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
R/umap.R
Outdated
| select(sample_id,V1,V2) %>% | ||
| column_to_rownames("sample_id") | ||
|
|
||
| train_labels = dplyr::filter( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
By doing this instead of using train_projection$df you are trusting that the row order has not changed, which may not be true.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I see, Ill fix this. Though I thought the lymphgen coulmn are truth labels that wouldnt change as they are linked to the sample_id and not V1 and V2
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes but the function may drop some rows so this would either cause a mismatch between sample and label or probably trigger an error if the lengths ended up different.
R/umap.R
Outdated
| conf_threshold = best_params$threshold, | ||
| na_label = "Other", | ||
| use_weights = best_params$use_w, | ||
| ignore_top = FALSE |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this can't be hard-coded. We should discuss
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
sounds good!
|
|
||
| if(drop_unlabeled_from_training){ | ||
| pred = dplyr::filter(pred,sample_id %in% test_df$sample_id) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What is the point of this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
if(drop_unlabeled_from_training){
pred = dplyr::filter(pred,sample_id %in% test_df$sample_id)
}
is now removed. I kept it from the original function predict_single_sample() as it appeared it had some sort of sanity checking functionality but now that you point it out it doesnt appear to have a purpose!
rdmorin
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Great start. Just a few comments and at least one change depending on how you respond to the comments
…ata on optimized UMAP. predictions_df param is redundant as a result
…test' labeling issue
…lot and param documentation
…elf, fully incorporated optimized_model to predict_single_sample
…dict_single_sample function
…n .rds for reproducibility, , , and also added to DLBCLone_save_optimized for reproducibility + running without error when running predict_single_sample
…w be used as test_df for training puposes reproducibly
…e_sample list output objects and adding necessary objects
…t to accept DLBCLone_KNN and DLBCLone_optimize_params list outputs
|
Is there anything in this PR that hasn't already made it into the Master branch? If not, @lklossok , can you close this PR? |
No description provided.