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 Dr.DuanChen,
I'm running scissor recently and came across the same error as the previous post #42. But it seems that there's no further solution. My input bulk phenotype/samples contains two categories: 6 type1 (target) and 395 type0(mixed other types), unexpectedly no scissor+ cells recognized by scissor. Change the alpha parameter didn't work. When the number of type0 samples randomly decreased to 10, the output looked like normal and the scissor+ cells approached 50%. The number of type0 samples ranges 10-200 had been tested and generated similar results. So i'm not sure more banlanced sample count can make it easier to get the positive results ? in this way the gene feature of target samples can be enough significant to enable the scissor to recognize positive cells. Do you have any recommendation for the least numbers of samples ?
Please correct it if any misunderstanding.
Thanks!
Sincerely,
Jianmei
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi Dr.DuanChen,
I'm running scissor recently and came across the same error as the previous post #42. But it seems that there's no further solution. My input bulk phenotype/samples contains two categories: 6 type1 (target) and 395 type0(mixed other types), unexpectedly no scissor+ cells recognized by scissor. Change the alpha parameter didn't work. When the number of type0 samples randomly decreased to 10, the output looked like normal and the scissor+ cells approached 50%. The number of type0 samples ranges 10-200 had been tested and generated similar results. So i'm not sure more banlanced sample count can make it easier to get the positive results ? in this way the gene feature of target samples can be enough significant to enable the scissor to recognize positive cells. Do you have any recommendation for the least numbers of samples ?
Please correct it if any misunderstanding.
Thanks!
Sincerely,
Jianmei
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: