Closed jeromekelleher closed 1 year ago
We focus here on the 749 Nextclade-designated recombinant samples, all but two of which descend from a recombination node in the Long ARG.
The most recent recombination node for 79 samples (XN: 53, XZ: 16, XAJ: 6, XE:1, XAD: 1, XAH: 1, XAK: 1) is the same.
I see Sally suggested deleting the entire para. We need to say something about the exclusion, however. How about:
79 samples (XN: 53, XZ: 16, XAJ: 6, XE:1, XAD: 1, XAH: 1, XAK: 1) trace back to a most recent recombination node that we suspect to be a false positive (row C in Table~\ref{tab:false_positives}, see Section~\ref{sec:false_positives}). For simplicity we exclude these samples from further analyses in this section.
Something like that. Can we keep "we" as meaning "us and the reader" rather than "we the authors" though. So rather than "we suspect", "are likely" or "may be"
Ah yes, a good distinction. I guess "we" make this passive then:
79 samples (XN: 53, XZ: 16, XAJ: 6, XE:1, XAD: 1, XAH: 1, XAK: 1) trace back to a most recent recombination node that is likely to be a false positive (row C in Table~\ref{tab:false_positives}, see Section~\ref{sec:false_positives}). For simplicity these samples are excluded from further analyses in this section.
Done