ENH move IL2 stuff to its own section
This commit is contained in:
parent
54fb855b19
commit
1c65546e41
|
@ -2168,7 +2168,7 @@ Venn diagram from the venn R package.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\section{results}
|
\section{results}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\subsection{DOE shows optimal conditions for expanded potent T cells}
|
\subsection{T cells can be grown on DMSs with lower IL2 concentrations}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
% TODO this plots proportions look dumb
|
% TODO this plots proportions look dumb
|
||||||
\begin{figure*}[ht!]
|
\begin{figure*}[ht!]
|
||||||
|
@ -2194,6 +2194,10 @@ Venn diagram from the venn R package.
|
||||||
\label{fig:il2_mod}
|
\label{fig:il2_mod}
|
||||||
\end{figure*}
|
\end{figure*}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
% TODO this is not consistent with the next section since the responses are
|
||||||
|
% different
|
||||||
|
\subsection{DOE shows optimal conditions for expanded potent T cells}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
% TODO not all of these were actually use, explain why by either adding columns
|
% TODO not all of these were actually use, explain why by either adding columns
|
||||||
% or marking with an asterisk
|
% or marking with an asterisk
|
||||||
\begin{table}[!h] \centering
|
\begin{table}[!h] \centering
|
||||||
|
@ -2284,14 +2288,15 @@ process (Fig.1d-e).
|
||||||
\end{table}
|
\end{table}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
SR models achieved the highest predictive performance (R2>93\%) when using
|
SR models achieved the highest predictive performance (R2>93\%) when using
|
||||||
multi-omics predictors for all endpoint responses (\cref{tab:mod_results}). SR achieved R2>98\%
|
multi-omics predictors for all endpoint responses (\cref{tab:mod_results}). SR
|
||||||
while GBM tree-based ensembles showed leave-one-out cross-validated R2 (LOO-R2)
|
achieved R2>98\% while GBM tree-based ensembles showed leave-one-out
|
||||||
>95\% for CD4+ and CD4+/CD8+ TN+TCM responses. Similarly, LASSO, PLSR, and SVM
|
cross-validated R2 (LOO-R2) >95\% for CD4+ and CD4+/CD8+ TN+TCM responses.
|
||||||
methods showed consistent high LOO-R2, 92.9\%, 99.7\%, and 90.5\%, respectively,
|
Similarly, LASSO, PLSR, and SVM methods showed consistent high LOO-R2, 92.9\%,
|
||||||
to predict the CD4+/CD8+ TN+TCM. Yet, about 10\% reduction in LOO-R2,
|
99.7\%, and 90.5\%, respectively, to predict the CD4+/CD8+ TN+TCM. Yet, about
|
||||||
72.5\%-81.7\%, was observed for CD4+ TN+TCM with these three methods. Lastly, SR
|
10\% reduction in LOO-R2, 72.5\%-81.7\%, was observed for CD4+ TN+TCM with these
|
||||||
and PLSR achieved R2>90\% while other ML methods exhibited exceedingly variable
|
three methods. Lastly, SR and PLSR achieved R2>90\% while other ML methods
|
||||||
LOO-R2 (0.3\%,RF-51.5\%,LASSO) for CD8+ TN+TCM cells.
|
exhibited exceedingly variable LOO-R2 (0.3\%,RF-51.5\%,LASSO) for CD8+ TN+TCM
|
||||||
|
cells.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
% FIGURE the CD4/CD8 model results using SR
|
% FIGURE the CD4/CD8 model results using SR
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue