Skip to content
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

[WIP] Outline the Study section #136

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 20, 2016
Merged

[WIP] Outline the Study section #136

merged 2 commits into from
Dec 20, 2016

Conversation

agitter
Copy link
Collaborator

@agitter agitter commented Nov 8, 2016

I outlined initial thoughts about what topics to cover and which we might de-emphasize or leave out. Before merging, let's discuss and finalize the sub-sections so that we can divide them and begin writing.

Tagging contributors from #116 who expressed interest in this section: @traversc @w9 @kumardeep27 @gokceneraslan @gwaygenomics @minseven @gailrosen @XieConnect

@gailrosen
Copy link
Contributor

I think I'll have enough for about 3-4 paragraphs under metagenomics... is that enough?

@agitter
Copy link
Collaborator Author

agitter commented Nov 8, 2016

@gailrosen Yes, I'd say so. Can you please add a few bullet points in the comments here about the main messages? Then we can see how it fits with the rest of the section, and I can merge it into this pull request.

@gailrosen
Copy link
Contributor

I guess the main points will revolve around some of the pros and cons I have found. But this is what I can find that's remotely related to metagenomics.

Microbiome machine learning challenge: https://github.com/alifar76/TFMicrobiome
And potential

@XieConnect
Copy link
Contributor

@agitter The first half of subsections seems good. Since I'm less up-to-date with the second half, I'll wait for comments from other experts.

Regarding my responsibility now: do you suggest I also list bullet points about main messages/works beneath the subsections I'm familiar with? Some these topics have been included in other reviews, so I need to figure out ways to differentiate as needed.

@sw1
Copy link
Contributor

sw1 commented Nov 10, 2016

Three overlapping papers: 2 on deep exponential families and 2 on deep survival analysis:

  1. Deep Exponential Families (http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.2581): A non-linear deep architecture that builds on exponential family distributions and hence an be applied to a variety of data types (e.g., binary data, count data). They provide examples that are extensions of sigmoid belief networks and make additoinal comparisons to RBMs. The model is fit with variational information, so that might be another opportunity to tie it with other models.
  2. Deep Survival Analysis (http://arxiv.org/abs/1608.02158): An application of DEFs where they predicted disease risk using EHRs. See Deep Survival Analysis #81
  3. Deep Survival: A Deep Cox Proportional Hazards Network (http://arxiv.org/abs/1606.00931): Another deep survival model, but instead of using DEFs, this is a deep implementation of the Faraggi-Simon survival network. The model predicts disease risk, as well as acting as a recommender system in that it can provide the risk of being on treatment A compared to B. A variety of older (shallow) architectures are described, so making comparisons would be easy. They used real and simulated data.

@agitter
Copy link
Collaborator Author

agitter commented Nov 13, 2016

@gailrosen That looks like plenty of material. I haven't read those papers so I still don't have a good sense of what those pros and cons are or how subcellular localization fits with metagenomics. Feel free to propose a reorganization of the sub-sections if there is a better way to approach this.

As the next step, can you please suggest topic sentences or bullet points about the pros and cons for these paragraphs? Then I can add them to my pull request, and you'll be able to start writing this section.

@agitter
Copy link
Collaborator Author

agitter commented Nov 13, 2016

@XieConnect Yes, I would like to move forward with main messages for these topics. I can contribute but would like help from others. For those topics that have already been covered well in other reviews, I suggest we plan to keep our text short for now. As an example, predicting the effects of non-coding variants on TF binding has been discussed in #47 and elsewhere. We could refer to the review and primary sources, very briefly recap the models, and focus our discussion on any particular new commentary, critiques, or future opportunities. We can also emphasize the connection to human disease.

@agitter
Copy link
Collaborator Author

agitter commented Nov 13, 2016

@sw1 It would be great to have you contribute the discussion of these papers. They appear to fit better with the Categorize section instead of this Study section. Can you please review the Categorize section stubs and create a separate pull request with your edits?

@agitter
Copy link
Collaborator Author

agitter commented Nov 13, 2016

@cgreene Do you have any comments on the global organization of this section before we go further outlining the details? Is the data type-focused division of subsections likely to lead to too much of an "enumerative" style?

@gailrosen
Copy link
Contributor

gailrosen commented Nov 29, 2016 via email

@cgreene
Copy link
Member

cgreene commented Nov 29, 2016 via email

@cgreene
Copy link
Member

cgreene commented Dec 19, 2016

Ok. My grant is in, and I am back to the world of the able to participate! @gailrosen still on board?

@gailrosen
Copy link
Contributor

gailrosen commented Dec 19, 2016 via email

Copy link
Member

@cgreene cgreene left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM 👍 One place I like what you have. In the other, I think we should confirm that there will be a metagenomics section that @gailrosen will probably contribute.

*Predicting gene expression levels and unsupervised approaches for learning
from gene expression. Those could be divided into separate sub-sections.*

### Splicing
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I like splicing as separate from gene expression, unless we change things to "transcript expression"

can be discussed with the single-cell papers.*

### Metagenomics

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do you want to update this to confirm that there will be a section? @gailrosen has sufficient content to fill out a section.

@XieConnect
Copy link
Contributor

@agitter I can resume from where we left behind last month if help is still needed on this section (your comment at #136 (comment)).
Otherwise, I'll move on to the EHR-related sections. Thanks for your detailed instructions.

(Sorry that for some reason, I didn't always get targeted notifications addressed to me and they often got buried among other general discussions.)

@agitter
Copy link
Collaborator Author

agitter commented Dec 20, 2016

@XieConnect Yes, I would still like help with this section. However, if you prefer to start on EHR content first, that's also great.

Copy link
Member

@cgreene cgreene left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM 👍

expertise, in which case we may acknowledge the application area but not
dive into merits or weaknesses of individual methods.*

### Gene expression
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If you want to assign these bits out like you did with the metagenomics section, you can assign this and splicing to me. I may see if we can snag a splicing guru from Penn (Yoseph Barash). If not, I did read a few of those papers and could write that bit.

@agitter
Copy link
Collaborator Author

agitter commented Dec 20, 2016

@cgreene I confirmed the metagenomics and splicing sub-sections per your comments above. I also removed methylation and added variant calling to the sequencing sub-section. I think we'll want to discuss #99 and #159. Going to merge now.

@sw1 before closing this pull request, I wanted to remind you of the three papers you outlined above for the categorize section.

@agitter agitter merged commit ee7ee6f into master Dec 20, 2016
@agitter agitter deleted the study-stubs branch December 20, 2016 13:10
@XieConnect
Copy link
Contributor

@agitter I can help finish this section first, and then move on to other sections. I'll start reading through related thread discussions here and existing literature (especially prior reviews) and present a draft for you. I'll try to finish early this week. Thanks a lot.

dhimmel pushed a commit to dhimmel/deep-review that referenced this pull request Nov 3, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants