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
Yes that is indeed better implementation but opens a new question for me regarding the methodology, which might not make sense but since you know better how to treat the proteomics data I wonder
Would be there any issue/implications when using different number of nlandmarks for each run/sample ??
thanks for the question. msPIP in msImpute is very experimental and implementations were not fully evaluated. We are though experimenting with "number of landmarks" in a different but related project, and there we see it makes difference. But yes, generally given that the landmarks serve the purpose of between-run alignment, they should be shared across runs, where possible. but this i haven't tested in context of msImpute.
As i mentioned, feel free to suggest your changes in a PR. Happy to consider!
When running msPIP function there is a point where the error mentioned in the title occurs.
I was wondering if the following is a valid solution:
The idea is to select the whole set of landmarks available in case that they are less than 50 to find the maximum number of nearest neighbors.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: