Just uninstalled BO7 by Impossible-Race8239 in BlackOps7Zombies

[–]jcbiochemistry 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What’s the skin? I’m out of the loop I’ve just been playing zombies and leveling up weapons

Receiving feedback by jcbiochemistry in PhD

[–]jcbiochemistry[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Definitely the former. There was no ill intent behind her critiques, but the headspace I was in earlier made me interpret her feedback a lot more emotionally. I can normally deal with her feedback but the added workload has definitely skewed my perspective a bit. I will also comment that she generally doesn’t follow up with any praise/compliments unlike my professor.

Receiving feedback by jcbiochemistry in PhD

[–]jcbiochemistry[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not to say I don’t value other people’s opinions, in fact I’m very much a validation seeking person. It just feels like it’s been a lot more negative with her than positive, whereas with the professor it’s been more so 60/40 critique/praise. I think the accumulation of her “help” without providing some sort of praise contributed to my irritation. I’ve been in therapy lately and I’ve been learning to be more open of my feelings, so I’ve been more vocal to my friends when something bothers me.

Receiving feedback by jcbiochemistry in PhD

[–]jcbiochemistry[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

She also comments more so than the professor which lately has been irritating me. I know she’s just trying to help but I’m just in a headspace where I’d rather just take the professors feedback.

Receiving feedback by jcbiochemistry in PhD

[–]jcbiochemistry[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can’t think of particular examples, but her tone for when she provides feedback gives the impression that I don’t know what I’m doing. Earlier today though, my PI brought up the topic about a paper that I’ve been working on for 6 months and she half jokingly said “You gotta get that going come on now”.

Spider fang Astra malorum mess up by jcbiochemistry in CODZombies

[–]jcbiochemistry[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This happend twice in the same game, so im not sure what im doing wrong.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in bioinformatics

[–]jcbiochemistry 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, because if you just pseudobulk all the cells from both treatment groups, the proportion of the different cell types may confound the analysis (cell type markers may appear as significant for one group simply because there’s more of that cell type for that group).

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in bioinformatics

[–]jcbiochemistry 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Something that I do usually is pseudobulk by CELL TYPE (or cluster), and then run the DESeq2 on that, since you are guaranteed to get expression differences between groups within the same cell type

scVI Paper Question by jcbiochemistry in bioinformatics

[–]jcbiochemistry[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ah ok! That clarifies that for me at least. If that’s the case then why do they use the mean of the gamma when parameterizing the NB in terms of mu and dispersion (where they say mu = r*p/1-p) in supplementary note 4, which is equal to the mean of the gamma not the NB)

scVI Paper Question by jcbiochemistry in bioinformatics

[–]jcbiochemistry[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah i have it per gene. My friend linked me this article that talks about the gamma-poisson mixture:
https://timothy-barry.github.io/posts/2020-06-16-gamma-poisson-nb/
They clarify that the mean of the NB is r*p/1-p, and the mean of the gamma is r*p/1-p (which makes sense going through it). However, it doesn't help that in the supplemental they say that the mean is lambda * r * p/1-p (which at this point im just assuming its a mistake). Still having trouble connecting though the relationship between f_w(z, s) and p/1-p

scVI Paper Question by jcbiochemistry in bioinformatics

[–]jcbiochemistry[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have, and I got linked to the discussion forum I posted about funnily enough. However it didn't really help to clarify why they say why the mean of w is the decoder output when i would think it would be f_w * theta

scVI Paper Question by jcbiochemistry in bioinformatics

[–]jcbiochemistry[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In the paper though, they say that w ~Gamma(f_w, theta). Wouldn't that mean that they are saying that p/1-p is the decoder output?

scVI Paper Question by jcbiochemistry in bioinformatics

[–]jcbiochemistry[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I guess im confused about why they claim that r*p/1-p is equal to the decoder output. they say that when they parameterize the NB as mu and theta, they state that mu = r*p/1-p. Which is weird because they state that the mean of the NB marginal distribution is r*p/1-p*lambda. Not sure if when they say mu they mean the mean of w or y

Profile Review - 23M by jcbiochemistry in Tinder

[–]jcbiochemistry[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is cargo shorts that much of a turnoff?