Yes! - the critical piece of information that we're missing is the
proportion of *all* structures that come from SG centres. Only
knowing that can we do any serious statistics ...
-- Ian
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Frank von Delft
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> b) very large Rmerge values:
>>
>> Rmerge Rwork Rfree Rfree-Rwork Resolution
>> ---------------------------------------------
>> 0.9990 0.1815 0.2086 0.0271 1.80<<< SG center, unpublished
>> 0.8700 0.1708 0.2270 0.0562 1.96<<< unpublished
>> 0.7700 0.1870 0.2297 0.0428 1.56
>> 0.7600 0.2380 0.2680 0.0300 2.50<<< SG center, unpublished
>> 0.7000 0.1700 0.2253 0.0553 1.71
>> 0.6400 0.2179 0.2715 0.0536 2.75<<< SG center, unpublished
>>
>> The most disturbing to me is that of those with very large overall
>> Rmerge values, 3 come from structural genomics centers.
>
> Is that less or more disturbing than that the other 50% come from not-SG
> centers?
>
> Of course, the authors themselves may be willing to help correct the obvious
> typos -- which will presumably disappear forever once we can finally upload
> log files upon deposition (coming soon, I'm told).
>
> On an unrelated note, it's reassuring to see sound statistical principles --
> averages, large N, avoidance of small number-anecdotes, and such rot --
> continue not to be abandoned in the politics of science funding, he said
> airily.
>
> phx
>
|