Open enricoferrero opened 7 years ago
It might fit in Study or Categorize. Most of the EHR work has been discussed in Categorize. The gene-disease associations seem more like Study than Treat to me, though the lines are blurry between these sections.
OK, I've just finished reading it and, despite being a methodological paper, the architecture of the (deep?) neural network for their neural embedding model is not very well described in my opinion. Generally speaking the, neural network aspect is not emphasised so I'm not sure it should be included. It's still a cool paper though and the DAG2D performs very well and could be used effectively for novel target identification.
If @agitter or @brettbj (I'm assuming you authored the EHR section) could have a look and advise whether this should be included or not, that'd be great.
Section-wise, I'm not sure how it would fit in Study so I would probably try to incorporate it into the existing EHR section in Categorise (provided you think it's worth including).
@enricoferrero I may not have much time to look at this carefully reasonably soon. I'm pretty consumed looking over the recent pull requests on other topics. I trust your judgement. We have also been fine leaving out papers that aren't a good fit or don't describe a model or evaluation in sufficient detail.
http://doi.org/10.1038/srep32404 (https://www.nature.com/articles/srep32404)
This one is quite interesting and I haven't seen it mentioned in here. It's not overly obvious but my understanding is that they are using deep learning:
It could fit in the EHR section even though it's not really about categorisation. I think the most interesting bit is about novel gene - disease associations (which could be targets) so maybe Treat is a better place?