Skip to content

Cannot reproduce the same results #8

@Hasindri

Description

@Hasindri

Hi,

Thank you very much for publishing this interesting work. I have reproduced the results on TCGA COADREAD cohort, and my results do not replicate your reported values. I downloaded the Case IDs as in your split files, patched using CLAM and encoded using CTransPath. I trained the model for 2 epochs as mentioned in your codebase. However validation c-index results that I obtained, averaged across splits for each LR,DECAY configuration is as follows.


LR | DECAY | AVG VAL_CINDEX

1E-03 | 0.0001 | 0.5904815138908460
5E-05 | 0.0001 | 0.5669782626940630
5E-04 | 1E-05 | 0.6072460042608510
1E-04 | 0.0001 | 0.5792166181879860
5E-04 | 0.001 | 0.6072460042608510
5E-04 | 0.01 | 0.63487368234452
1E-04 | 1E-05 | 0.5792166181879860
1E-03 | 0.01 | 0.6090229612498970
1E-04 | 0.01 | 0.5792166181879860
5E-04 | 0.0001 | 0.6072460042608510
1E-04 | 0.001 | 0.5792166181879860
5E-05 | 0.01 | 0.566692110764221
5E-05 | 0.001 | 0.5669782626940630
1E-03 | 1E-05 | 0.5904815138908460
1E-03 | 0.001 | 0.602858857885369
5E-05 | 1E-05 | 0.5669782626940630
  

When averaged across all configs, I get 0.589621869602649  ± 0.020049446852174125 as the val c-index which is significantly different to 0.673 reported in the paper.

Could you kindly help me understand why I am unable to reproduce the given numbers? I need to understand what I might be doing wrong. Are you reporting an averaged or the highest val c-index? And are there any other implementation details that is not mentioned in the paper?

Thank you.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type
    No fields configured for issues without a type.

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions