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
In the 28-Sep-2018.M01841 run, there were two runs with problems in the MIDI sample:
89682A had low coverage at the end of the MIDI sample. It was reported as a failure in resistance_fail.csv.
89674A didn't map anything at all in the MIDI sample. It wasn't reported in resistance_fail.csv.
It seems like 89674A is worse, so why isn't it reported in resistance_fail.csv? Is there any benefit to showing the failures differently from low quality? Chanson said we should always display resistance if we have enough data for a resistance mutation, even when we're missing data at other positions.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In the 28-Sep-2018.M01841 run, there were two runs with problems in the MIDI sample:
resistance_fail.csv
.resistance_fail.csv
.It seems like 89674A is worse, so why isn't it reported in
resistance_fail.csv
? Is there any benefit to showing the failures differently from low quality? Chanson said we should always display resistance if we have enough data for a resistance mutation, even when we're missing data at other positions.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: