You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
First of all, thanks for the awesome tool! I (along with @symoon) been investigating using SpaGCN for one of our projects. We're successfully able to reproduce the results from the tutorial notebook, though we've noticed some surprising behavior regarding inclusion of the histology information. In particular, when we train without incorporating histology, we see better agreement with the ground truth spatial domains than training with histology included. We've created a colab notebook to reproduce this phenomenon here.
Have you noticed similar phenomena before? We were surprised to see this, as we assumed performance with histology would be better than without, but we didn't see any discussion of this in the original paper.
Thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi Jian,
First of all, thanks for the awesome tool! I (along with @symoon) been investigating using SpaGCN for one of our projects. We're successfully able to reproduce the results from the tutorial notebook, though we've noticed some surprising behavior regarding inclusion of the histology information. In particular, when we train without incorporating histology, we see better agreement with the ground truth spatial domains than training with histology included. We've created a colab notebook to reproduce this phenomenon here.
Have you noticed similar phenomena before? We were surprised to see this, as we assumed performance with histology would be better than without, but we didn't see any discussion of this in the original paper.
Thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: