Luke Zappia
@lazappi.bsky.social
Bioinformatician, data scientist, software developer
Also @_lazappi_ and @lazappi@mastodon.au
Also @_lazappi_ and @lazappi@mastodon.au
Reposted by Luke Zappia
A very big thank you to all co-authors and collaborators! @lazappi.bsky.social @rcannood.bsky.social Martin Morgan @scverse.bsky.social @ivirshup.bsky.social Chananchida Sang-aram Danila Bredikhin Brian Schilder Ruth Seurinck @yvansaeys.bsky.social @saeyslab.bsky.social
August 25, 2025 at 3:24 PM
A very big thank you to all co-authors and collaborators! @lazappi.bsky.social @rcannood.bsky.social Martin Morgan @scverse.bsky.social @ivirshup.bsky.social Chananchida Sang-aram Danila Bredikhin Brian Schilder Ruth Seurinck @yvansaeys.bsky.social @saeyslab.bsky.social
Hopefully coming soon to @bioconductor.bsky.social!
August 26, 2025 at 5:37 AM
Hopefully coming soon to @bioconductor.bsky.social!
If they don't agree then it depends which you find more convincing I guess. I think there are lots of reasons two benchmarks might not after without either if them being "wrong" though.
April 16, 2025 at 11:58 AM
If they don't agree then it depends which you find more convincing I guess. I think there are lots of reasons two benchmarks might not after without either if them being "wrong" though.
Very on brand 😹. I guess I missed a space 🤦🏻. At least the mystery is solved.
March 20, 2025 at 6:36 AM
Very on brand 😹. I guess I missed a space 🤦🏻. At least the mystery is solved.
Yeah, it surprised me a bit as well. This wasn't the main aim of the paper though so it's a fairly limited comparison. There is a lot more you could do if you wanted to properly compare them.
March 19, 2025 at 4:39 PM
Yeah, it surprised me a bit as well. This wasn't the main aim of the paper though so it's a fairly limited comparison. There is a lot more you could do if you wanted to properly compare them.
Hmmm...It's broken for me too 😿. I'm not sure what happened there but this is working www.nature.com/articles/s41.... Thanks for letting me know!
Feature selection methods affect the performance of scRNA-seq data integration and querying - Nature Methods
This Registered Report presents a benchmarking study evaluating the impact of feature selection on scRNA-seq integration.
www.nature.com
March 19, 2025 at 7:37 AM
Hmmm...It's broken for me too 😿. I'm not sure what happened there but this is working www.nature.com/articles/s41.... Thanks for letting me know!
Big thank you to everyone who contributed to the study 🎉!
And thank you for reading 📖!
16/16
And thank you for reading 📖!
16/16
March 18, 2025 at 3:40 PM
Big thank you to everyone who contributed to the study 🎉!
And thank you for reading 📖!
16/16
And thank you for reading 📖!
16/16
The project took 2.5 years from initial commit to publication. Some things could have been quicker but that’s not a complaint. I think that’s how long science takes and we should set realistic expectations, especially for junior researchers. It also emphasises the need for continuous benchmarking.
March 18, 2025 at 3:40 PM
The project took 2.5 years from initial commit to publication. Some things could have been quicker but that’s not a complaint. I think that’s how long science takes and we should set realistic expectations, especially for junior researchers. It also emphasises the need for continuous benchmarking.
You can also find the code on GitHub github.com/theislab/atl... and the data on figshare figshare.com/projects/Ben....
14/16
14/16
GitHub - theislab/atlas-feature-selection-benchmark: Code for "Feature selection methods affect the performance of scRNA-seq data integration and querying"
Code for "Feature selection methods affect the performance of scRNA-seq data integration and querying" - theislab/atlas-feature-selection-benchmark
github.com
March 18, 2025 at 3:40 PM
You can also find the code on GitHub github.com/theislab/atl... and the data on figshare figshare.com/projects/Ben....
14/16
14/16