Annotation consistency: HTP: Difference between revisions
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
==3. Comments/counter arguments== | ==3. Comments/counter arguments== | ||
[09-09-2008] I am very much for the creation of an HTP tag. Investigators have asked specifically how we are dealing with such results, some would be interested in having the option of removing them from the annotation set they use to validate their own methods. | |||
While I am not saying that all HTP methods necessarily produce less reliable than results (as with everything there is a range of quality), the huge number of annotations that such investigations can produce does have the potential to produce a greater number of erroneous data than small-scale experiments, particularly as unlike in a small focused experiment, investigators do not have the same time/opportunity to evaluate their all results in respect to the context of other knowledge. | |||
In addition, for species/gene sets where we might not have very much other data, we could end up with a set of manual annotations which mainly originate from one/two investigations and which might produce some bias in the resulting GO annotation set? As we could get so much data from these sources, I'd like to be extra careful and once its in and tagged, we can then make the analysis as to the general confidence level - I get the feeling that experimentalists expect us to be careful as to how we present information from such large datasets. | |||
Emily | |||
==4. Proposed resolution== | ==4. Proposed resolution== | ||
Revision as of 12:08, 9 September 2008
Group Members
(anyone can add themselves)
- Emily Dimmer, Stacia Engel, Val Wood, Ruth Lovering
1. Issue
Do we need to create a 'HTP' tag? Why would we need that:
- allow users to distinguish between large scale and gene-by-gene experiments
- would give the possibility to exclude this data from some analyses if required
- HTP users who use GO to validate their results need to remove HTP data which uses the same methods as theirs
2. Proposed solution(s)
3. Comments/counter arguments
[09-09-2008] I am very much for the creation of an HTP tag. Investigators have asked specifically how we are dealing with such results, some would be interested in having the option of removing them from the annotation set they use to validate their own methods.
While I am not saying that all HTP methods necessarily produce less reliable than results (as with everything there is a range of quality), the huge number of annotations that such investigations can produce does have the potential to produce a greater number of erroneous data than small-scale experiments, particularly as unlike in a small focused experiment, investigators do not have the same time/opportunity to evaluate their all results in respect to the context of other knowledge.
In addition, for species/gene sets where we might not have very much other data, we could end up with a set of manual annotations which mainly originate from one/two investigations and which might produce some bias in the resulting GO annotation set? As we could get so much data from these sources, I'd like to be extra careful and once its in and tagged, we can then make the analysis as to the general confidence level - I get the feeling that experimentalists expect us to be careful as to how we present information from such large datasets.
Emily