Dear @SingleCellProteomicsChallengeParticipants,
We are happy to inform that we have finished the scoring period of the _Single Cell Signaling Breast Cancer DREAM Challange_! We are impressed by the quality of everyone's work; all of your predictions were much better than random (which is not self-evident as seen in some previous Challenges!). Furthermore, many teams outperformed our reference models as well.
Please navigate to the [Leaderboard page](https://www.synapse.org/#!Synapse:syn20366914/wiki/594733) to see the final ranking of your predictions. If you do not find your team in the Leaderboard, it is likely because we have missed your write-ups and/or code. Please contact us if something is unclear.
We would like to thank you for all of the efforts in completing the write-ups and submitting the code! Now we will start drawing conclusions from the results of the challenge.
Best,
The Challange Organisers
Created by Verena Chung vchung Dear @daxiongshu ,
Thank you for the post! Information regarding a journal manuscript can be found on the [main challenge site](https://www.synapse.org/#!Synapse:syn20366914/wiki/593925) under **Journal Partners**, as well as **Incentives**. @attilagabor can elaborate further if needed.
Best,
Verena Dear @vchung ,
I was under the impression that a community paper will be published on this competition. Is it still the plan? Are we participants gonna be authors?
Thank you.
Jiwei Hi Atte,
that's a good idea, thanks!
We just wanted to know what is the score that everybody should pass with a reasonable model and data shuffling frequently used to derive a null model.
We have also two biological replica (referenced as time course A and B in the challenge description), that we compare.
Unfortunately, they coincide only in a few time points, so it is not straightforward to get a score comparable with the scores of the participants.
best,
Attila
Dear @attilagabor,
Thank you for your reply. However, wouldn't a more reasonable "baseline-score" be obtained by comparing the EGF+Serum condition to the other treatments at corresponding times? That would tell how well it is possible to predict the effect of an additional treatment.
Best,
Atte Dear Atte,
for the random predictions, we re-sampled the marker values (shuffling).
This results in a very rather bad score.
Best,
Attila Dear @atteaalto ,
Thank you for your post! I will tag @attilagabor, as he may better suited to answer your question.
Best,
Verena Dear @v.chung,
May I ask what do you mean by random predictions in Sub-challenge 2 (and 3)? In our tests, we compared cells from the EGF+Serum condition with cells from other conditions (with corresponding times), without taking the additional treatment into account at all. This produced quite good results compared to our predictions.
Best,
Atte Dear @daxiongshu ,
Thank you! The figure for SC1 has been fixed.
Best,
Verena The figure of performance over bootstrap samples is missing for sub challenge 1. The figure of sub challenge 2 is repeated twice.