Search
Question: Reproducibility of MultiDataSet Comparison
0
gravatar for Dario Strbenac
10 weeks ago by
Dario Strbenac1.4k
Australia
Dario Strbenac1.4k wrote:

In the journal article explaining MultiDataSet, it is claimed that MultiDataSet is better than the competing MultiAssayExperiment because "... MultiAssayExperiment is being developed by a large number of contributors making package improvements (to MultiAssayExperiment) slow and tedious." I wrote to the maintainer of MultiDataSet with a couple of feature requests last month and didn't get any reply about them. Can the article's claim that MultiDataSet maintainers are more methodical than MultiAssayExperiment maintainers be reproduced?

ADD COMMENTlink modified 10 weeks ago by Levi Waldron380 • written 10 weeks ago by Dario Strbenac1.4k

Dario, we apologize for not having replied your requests so far. The maintainer was on holidays. Today, he has read your questions and we are going to answer you in the coming days.

I'd like to take advantage of your post (and Levi’s ones) to clarify that in our manuscript we do not claim that MultiDataSet (MDS) is “better” than MultiAssayExperiment (MAE) because MAE is being developed by a large number of contributors. We just pointed out that this was a limitation when developing a package. Anyway, we are happy to see that after having written that MAE development was improved.

If you are interested in knowing how MDS and MAE compare with regard to time loading, memory usage, … we can write a post about that.

 

ADD REPLYlink written 9 weeks ago by juanr.gonzalez0
4
gravatar for Levi Waldron
10 weeks ago by
Levi Waldron380
CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy, New York, NY
Levi Waldron380 wrote:

I can't comment on MultiDataSet, but I can say that MultiAssayExperiment was designed by a large number of contributors over more than two years. It was really challenging to design something that would be extensible to an open-ended set of contained data classes (including on-disk and remote data representations) for developers working independently without changing the MultiAssayExperiment code base, while still being easy for end users to do subsetting (select rows, columns, assays) and reshaping to formats compatible with most existing software (merge assays and specimen information into long or wide-format dataframes or lists of matrices). However, one developer, Marcel Ramos, is responsible for almost all of the code base, and each time the group agreed on something it has not taken him long to implement it!

ADD COMMENTlink written 10 weeks ago by Levi Waldron380
3
gravatar for Levi Waldron
10 weeks ago by
Levi Waldron380
CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy, New York, NY
Levi Waldron380 wrote:

Also, I'm quite proud of the internal graph representation of the specimen:assay relationships (sampleMap(MAE)). It's a novel approach to maintaining consistency between specimens and any number of assays with replicates, missing data, and arbitrary per-assay naming conventions, but still have harmonized subsetting and single-command integration of assays into long and wide format dataframes. In simple multi-assay experiments you don't have to think about it; in more complex experiments you just have to create a three-column dataframe that matches column names in each assay to row names of the biological specimen data.

ADD COMMENTlink written 10 weeks ago by Levi Waldron380
Please log in to add an answer.

Help
Access

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
Powered by Biostar version 2.2.0
Traffic: 150 users visited in the last hour