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

Record data for confusing reports #8

Open
TommyJones opened this issue May 5, 2020 · 5 comments
Open

Record data for confusing reports #8

TommyJones opened this issue May 5, 2020 · 5 comments
Labels
help wanted Extra attention is needed

Comments

@TommyJones
Copy link
Owner

TommyJones commented May 5, 2020

ID numbers of reports that confuse me:

  • 18
@TommyJones TommyJones added the help wanted Extra attention is needed label May 5, 2020
@TommyJones
Copy link
Owner Author

Common thread appears to be that they report positive for different LoD (limit of detection, I think). Not sure how to properly contextualize.

@TommyJones
Copy link
Owner Author

I think I can aggregate over LoD. (a) It's only for positive samples and more importantly statistically-speaking (b) it seems that these partition the positive samples. See, for example, ID 20 p.29 where they describe 30 positive samples and then test 20 at 2xLoD, 5 at 3x, and 5 at 5x.

@TommyJones
Copy link
Owner Author

Closing this issue and going back to roll up LoD for all the confusing ones.

@TommyJones
Copy link
Owner Author

lol just kidding. Some of these still don't make sense. Looking at you, 18!

@TommyJones
Copy link
Owner Author

Per #8 (comment) I'm aggregating across LOD where there isn't a clear aggregated metric.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
help wanted Extra attention is needed
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant