Closed brettbj closed 7 years ago
What you have plus:
would be the categories I've seen. I am not sure how the article will be structured at the moment, but I think we should be careful to avoid reproducing the content of similar reviews
The virtual screening papers I started going through are perhaps another category as well (#45 and the references therein). They could arguably be a type of phenotyping, especially the cellular assays, but are quite different from EHR phenotypes.
I do think it would be helpful to start labeling papers and organizing what we have.
I am pro-organization. Shall we start to discuss? We've done a lot of reading and it might be a good time to start the part where we use this common language to start tackling our question. I can create an issue for this once I get to my hotel, or someone else can start one.
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 1:04 PM Anthony Gitter notifications@github.com wrote:
The virtual screening papers I started going through are perhaps another category as well (#45 https://github.com/greenelab/deep-review/issues/45 and the references therein). They could arguably be a type of phenotyping, especially the cellular assays, but are quite different from EHR phenotypes.
I do think it would be helpful to start labeling papers and organizing what we have.
— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/greenelab/deep-review/issues/87#issuecomment-241480065, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAhHs9JPQ63hmexR7MZmg28oUZH1b8UZks5qidabgaJpZM4Jp-CZ .
Closing this, we have decided how to organize papers.
I was selecting some papers to read + review and noticed a few trends -
Phenotyping (generally EHR based) Genomic Sequence Based (Primarily regulatory, CNN's on PSSMs etc.) Image-based methods
Would it be helpful to create labels and categorize the papers? Might lead naturally to review sections? Are there other categories I missed?