Last updated: 2018-07-22

workflowr checks: (Click a bullet for more information)
Expand here to see past versions:


Introduction. A vignette.

MASH v FLASH simulation results. Compares FLASH fits to MASH fits in a number of settings. Uses various methods to fit the FLASH object. The “OHL” method is best.

MASH v FLASH on GTEx. Compares FLASH to MASH using data from the GTEx project. Results are similar, but FLASH is more conservative.

MASH v FLASH detailed simulation study. Using the “OHL” method, compares the performance of FLASH-pn, FLASH-ash, and MASH in a single simulation setting. FLASH and MASH perform differently on different covariance structures. There is little or no advantage to using ash priors rather than point-normals.

MASH v FLASH detailed GTEx study. Uses an improved workflow to examine differences in MASH and FLASH fits to GTEx data. Particularly strong effects in a single condition might cause MASH to miss smaller effects that are shared among conditions. But FLASH might miss very small effects that are shared across all conditions.

Archived:

A first attempt. Stowed and forgotten.


This reproducible R Markdown analysis was created with workflowr 1.0.1