-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 47
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
Feature request summary lbf #216
Comments
@jerome-f Sorry, I'm not clear on what you are asking for, and I'm not sure what is |
Hey Peter, sorry there was a typo I meant lbf_variable matrix. What I am looking for is one lbf for each snp, right now we get lbf_variable vector for each snp across L. I am trying to sort of meta-analyze the credible sets reported across models (FINEMAP and SuSIE-RSS) using BMA. As you'd be aware susie and finemap don't always agree 1:1 on credible set configurations or PIPs. But by averaging across models you can quantify uncertainty around the specific snp. Best |
@jerome-f The logBFs ( You could also take a look at what Chris Wallace does in coloc, which uses the results of susie for colocalization. |
@pcarbo Thanks that makes sense. I will check out the coloc code base once again (That's where I looked at first). But broadly speaking given the same data fine mapping using different Bayesian methods will give you some what different credible set configurations and PIPs. When two methods do agree then you can be more certain about the inference but when there is disagreement it would be prudent to reconcile them such that you can attribute a confidence interval around the PIP/credible-sets etc. I haven't seen anyone really do this in the fine-mapping context. |
@pcarbo I wanted to check if adding summary lbf across single_effects is feasible. Right now I pick column wise maximum of the lbf_matrix variable.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: