I noticed from the webinar slides that the scoring metrics involves 'real' location, which I understand as the ones predicted in the paper.
If this is the ground truth (if I understand it correctly), as the speaker said in the webinar, there are no true locations about this 1297 cells.
Up to now, if I understand correctly, can I interpret this challenge from another perspective that we need to find a new 'efficient' method to approximate the results from the paper as closely as possible? If in that case, it seems that we cannot validate a strategy that might outperform the published one, instead the focus should fall on the three sub-challenges. I hope my understanding is not so wrong.
Thanks.
Created by calm The paper has proven that their method can uniquely find positions for cells using the 84 in situs, which is a big achievement.
Now we assume that the position is correct, but the question becomes if you can do the same job but with less in situ genes as reference?
We think methods that would do as well as the paper but use less in situ information will be very revealing of the biology underlying the process.
thanks
P