We need well-defined reviewers for studies and timely reviews. currently "qualified" reviewers are people that are at 200% capacity and urgency usually comes if Adam gets antsy or if some big conference is on the horizon, then it's a panicked rush.
Priority:
Desired solution:
Preferred or recommended technical approach:
DoD:
Ideas
One idea would be to have some automated QC checks to run when a study is loaded. Checks could include some automated verifications like:
Do we have the expected number of samples?
Do we see expected key genes in the list of most mutated genes?
Do we see overall correlation between RNA expression and CNA data?
Do we have oncokb annotations?
Manual QC checks could be supported by a dedicated QC tab in Study View page, specifically designed to:
show useful summary statistics that help with a quick assessment of the data quality and detection of potential issues.
We need well-defined reviewers for studies and timely reviews. currently "qualified" reviewers are people that are at 200% capacity and urgency usually comes if Adam gets antsy or if some big conference is on the horizon, then it's a panicked rush.
Priority:
Desired solution:
Preferred or recommended technical approach:
DoD:
Ideas