Kristian G. AndersenGeverifieerd account

Agreed. Also, for the software I have a hard time seeing what's new here? It's all pre-existing tools wrapped into a website (that I can't access). E.g. Taxonomer from IDbyDNA has been available for years (and is very fast with immediate results): https://www.taxonomer.com/ 

Yeah I note this in the piece. They argue that the differences are in how intuitive the front end is and how robust the back end is. But I think the key diff is: for better or worse, this is the one that funders are backing.

No particular issue with IDseq concetually but it would be a terrible mistake to focus on any particular software package or method in such a rapidly developing and unvalidated field ...

Yeah. As for how intuitive it is, I'll wait until I gain access to pass judgment. The main issue on the front end though is *interpretation*, not presentation. Mainly because of misclassifications and contaminants upstream in the pipeline - far from trivial to do.

Right. The interpretation gap is huge right now.

Agreed that contamination quantification, spurious mappings (from eg bad db), and scoring are the hardest parts. Even with large datasets (400 px from a few hospitals, similar context and processing), we've had trouble fitting reasonable models. @jackkamm