You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hi there,
Thanks for releasing drugz, greatly appreciated.
I have some instances where e.g. one of the treatments or controls is missing. In the paper you stated the paired-sample approach does not appear to offer significant benefits over an unpaired approach: when taking the mean fold change across experimental samples and comparing it to the mean fold change across control samples (Additional file 1: Figure S4A), the results are nearly identical to analysis of three paired samples
I was wondering if there was a way to enable drugz-mean when the number of controls doesn't equal the number of treated samples, to keep my pipeline tidier (i.e. not having to resort to other algorithms)?
Best regards,
Miika
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
You can use -unpaired flag to run drugZ in an unpaired approach.
Hope this helps.
Let me know if you have any further questions, or need further assistance.
Hi there,
Thanks for releasing drugz, greatly appreciated.
I have some instances where e.g. one of the treatments or controls is missing. In the paper you stated
the paired-sample approach does not appear to offer significant benefits over an unpaired approach: when taking the mean fold change across experimental samples and comparing it to the mean fold change across control samples (Additional file 1: Figure S4A), the results are nearly identical to analysis of three paired samples
I was wondering if there was a way to enable
drugz-mean
when the number of controls doesn't equal the number of treated samples, to keep my pipeline tidier (i.e. not having to resort to other algorithms)?Best regards,
Miika
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: