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
For fixslope, I initially tested [0.8-6] as the starting range, as for the DRIVE cohort data, where this parameter was not constrained, this range appeared to capture the majority of well-fit curves (~65%).
I also tested [0.8,10] with the most recent data, and I do have a large number of curves fitting with the max slope within the range permitted (either 6 or 10, respectively), but I think that may be partially a result how the error in the most recent plates is impacting the shape of these curves, i.e. we have many curves with no points in the slope or only a single point in the slope. The resulting midpoint titers are quite similar, as would be expected. I would expect that the larger this max slope is the more variability we might observe between slopes fit for samples with sharp curves like this, so a smaller range is likely preferable. Though, I will repeat this test once we have additional plates to confirm that these parameters are reasonable.
Similar to @anloes, I have also been constraining fixslope to a fairly loose range of [0.8, 10]. I agree that the difference between midpoints called with [0.8, 10] versus [0.8, 5] is likely to be minimal, but for now, I will probably continue to use this wider range until I have more data. I'm currently only testing with 9 individuals.
In the future, since there's no real biological reason (?) to point to for allowing such steep slopes, I agree that reducing the upper bound is probably better.
In #35, it was implemented to enable
fixslope
to constrain the slope to a range (see #32).However, more analysis of real data is needed to see if the suggested range in the example (
[0.8, 5]
) is actually reasonable for serum.Check this on real data and adjust accordingly.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: