-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
Contributor Supplied Score Thresholds #328
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Contributor Supplied Score Thresholds #328
Conversation
- Makes histogram shaded regions more generic - Adds first-class logic for calibration and range formatting - Adds CalibrationTable to Histogram display - Eliminates score range hardcoding
jstone-dev
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I loaded Dan's sample calibrations for urn:mavedb:00000097-0-1, and I think the visualization looks good. My only comment is about how we present it.
It seems to me that the calibrations should be treated as an alternative to the score ranges for normal and abnormal phenotypes with their OddsPath values. When the user is configuring the score histogram, the choice of calibrations vs score ranges should be independent of the choice of histogram data. So it seems to me that the tabs across the top of the histogram, which govern the histogram data, should still be "Overall Distribution," "Clinical View," and "Custom." I don't think we ought to have "Calibrations" here.
Instead, I'd suggest just having something like what in this version is called "Shader Options," but maybe it should be called "Ranges" or something like that. There could be three options, depending what's available for a given score set:
- Score ranges (meaning the score ranges provided by the investigator)
- IGVF pillar project calibrations
- None
These might be supplemented by other calibrations in the future.
|
I also wanted to ask about the utility of the new |
|
The latest changes look good to me. At some point we might need to revisit the default shader; if we had calibrations but no investigator-supplied ranges, we might want to default to the calibrations instead of no shader. But this seems unlikely to come up in practice. |
UI features for VariantEffect/mavedb-api#361.