Results: Content related to Fig. 3

[donovanr]

Issue summary

feature histograms are all messed up

Details

There is something deeply wrong with the output in part C. Look at “cell shape area” (which I would call, um, cell area, or projected cell area). These are z-scored so I don't know the actual numbers, but for sure the actual data should vary over at least a two-fold range (for cells in different times in their cell cycle). As beta is increased, the generated cell images systematically increase (?) until by the time we get to beta = 0.99 the average cell area is 7.5 standard deviations !!!!! off from the actual cell size, that is it must be either extremely large or extremely tiny. There is no way this is right, it is flatly contradicted by the images in part B, and also it doesn’t make any sense. Can we please look at the actual numbers here (area in square micrometers), not the z-scores? Similarly it seems unreasonable to have this systematic march in z-scores for the DNA intensity to, again 7.5 standard deviations away from the median of the actual data. Again, this makes no sense at all given the images in part B.

TODO

• [ ] code
• [ ] manuscript text
• [ ] figure

[donovanr]

dropping this content due to unvetted / buggy features