Index  | Recent Threads  | Unanswered Threads  | Who's Active  | Guidelines  | Search
 

Quick Go »
No member browsing this thread
Thread Status: Active
Total posts in this thread: 6
[ Jump to Last Post ]
Post new Thread
Author
Previous Thread This topic has been viewed 801 times and has 5 replies Next Thread
Former Member
Cruncher
Joined: May 22, 2018
Post Count: 0
Status: Offline
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Discovering your statistically relevant results?

Is there a way to see my most significantly important results?
[Apr 19, 2007 2:24:00 AM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
retsof
Former Community Advisor
USA
Joined: Jul 31, 2005
Post Count: 6824
Status: Offline
Project Badges:
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: Discovering your statistically relevant results?

Is there a way to see my most significantly important results?

All of my own results are important. What results are NOT important to you?

I am missing the point.

Perhaps you mean the project papers or overall wrapup discussion from the scientists on each project page.
----------------------------------------
SUPPORT ADVISOR
Work+GPU i7 8700 12threads
School i7 4770 8threads
Default+GPU Ryzen 7 3700X 16threads
Ryzen 7 3800X 16 threads
Ryzen 9 3900X 24threads
Home i7 3540M 4threads50%
[Apr 19, 2007 2:31:24 AM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Former Member
Cruncher
Joined: May 22, 2018
Post Count: 0
Status: Offline
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: Discovering your statistically relevant results?

Unlike some grid projects, most of the projects at WCG simply don't have a simple "success" metric. Some of them do, partly. But generally, the results don't mean much until they have been taken back to the lab and worked with a little.
[Apr 19, 2007 10:06:06 AM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Former Member
Cruncher
Joined: May 22, 2018
Post Count: 0
Status: Offline
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
confused Re: Discovering your statistically relevant results?

Unlike some grid projects, most of the projects at WCG simply don't have a simple "success" metric. Some of them do, partly. But generally, the results don't mean much until they have been taken back to the lab and worked with a little.


Thanks for the response. My curiosity revolves around, for example, how many of the tasks my systems have run did actually make it to the lab. Have any made it to clinical trials?

As an oversimplification, it would be foolish and extreme hubris to say "I cured cancer," but it is possible that any one of us has been the mule that may have lead to a breakthrough. While participation in the grids is effectively dumb labor (we aren't generally involved in research, devising approaches, implementing tasks, analyzing results, lab trials, clinical trials, the myriad of medical, legal, financial and ethical questions involved bringing a drug to market, etc), we could have still be involved in something extraordinary.

It would be nice to know. Although I see retsof's point, I don't believe retsof understood mine. While even a "failed" task effectively scratches one possibility off the list of potential solutions, and therefore brings us closer to an actual solution, the fact is there isn't a feedback mechanism that I've found either way.
[Apr 19, 2007 10:33:48 AM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Former Member
Cruncher
Joined: May 22, 2018
Post Count: 0
Status: Offline
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: Discovering your statistically relevant results?

Hi Derek,
Most of our projects are developing data about a large array of biological molecules. FightAIDS@Home is the only project that runs prospective drugs against a single molecule. And even FAAH (in an early phase) checks possible drugs against a palette of ?120? variations of the HIV protease molecule. Which could mean as many as 360 members running a prospective drug. We would really have to dig to find out all the names. A good drug interaction 'in silico' does not mean success. Rather, it means that the drug is marked as showing high potential for actual development in the laboratory. During development in the lab, many small variations of a candidate drug are tried and their relative efficiency carefully studied. Usually, the results are only moderately interesting. We are using our computers to try to reduce the amount of wasted lab effort.

Lawrence
[Apr 19, 2007 11:17:07 AM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Former Member
Cruncher
Joined: May 22, 2018
Post Count: 0
Status: Offline
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: Discovering your statistically relevant results?

Absolutely our work is making it to the lab.

And beyond! The Help Defeat Cancer team hope to have Tissue Microarrays become a normal tool in diagnosing and treating cancers - and in a very short timeframe, too.

FightAIDS@Home have already begun labwork on the first phases of their work crunched here on our grid. But these preliminary trials are still a long way from clinical trials - developing drugs is a slow business.

And academic research takes quite a long time from initial research to final publication - always months, and sometimes years, while the results are checked and peer reviewed. Usually, the actual publication will come out long after we have finished our part. For example, the first publication from the original HPF project has now been published, months after we completed it - and that paper was from the very first part of the project, and was submitted for review long before HPF had finished.

Patience is our watchword, even if it's sooooo frustrating at times.
[Apr 19, 2007 11:54:28 AM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
[ Jump to Last Post ]
Post new Thread