-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 46
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Immune_All_Low - model training question #104
Comments
I am also interested in this |
@NikicaJEa, if you only select a subset of genes for training, SGD is not necessary - you can safely turn it off to enable a canonical logistic regression. |
Thanks for your reply @ChuanXu1. I experimented with all possible combinations I could think of: with/without SGD, mini batching, balance_cell_type, without subseting genes, with feature selection step. Unfortunately, none of these combinations yielded results comparable to the original immune_low model. Now I understand there is always some degree of randomness to be expected, but this is more than I would expect. It would be beneficial to understand the specific parameters under which the original model was trained. |
@NikicaJEa, to produce a model with comparable performance versus the built-in models, you can use the same set of genes (which you had already done plus check_expression = False) and increase the number of iterations (for example, max_iter = 1000), with all other parameters being the defaults. |
Hi I was trying to replicate your Immune_All_Low model by using the same training dataset that you kindly provided (CellTypist_Immune_Reference_v2_count). I tested the two models (original and the replicate) on a independent dataset. The final annotations differ quite a bit, especially I notice that the prediction scores from the original model are significantly higher (0-1) than of the replicate one (mostly around 0). Here is the model training code:
I also tried to see if it would make a difference if I would normalize after the gene subsetting but nothing changed much.
Thanks for the help!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: