Clarification: I did not mean I/sigma of 2 per se, I just meant I/sigma is more directly a measure of signal than R values.
JPK On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Jacob Keller <j-kell...@fsm.northwestern.edu> wrote: > Dear Crystallographers, > > I cannot think why any of the various flavors of Rmerge/meas/pim > should be used as a data cutoff and not simply I/sigma--can somebody > make a good argument or point me to a good reference? My thinking is > that signal:noise of >2 is definitely still signal, no matter what the > R values are. Am I wrong? I was thinking also possibly the R value > cutoff was a historical accident/expedient from when one tried to > limit the amount of data in the face of limited computational > power--true? So perhaps now, when the computers are so much more > powerful, we have the luxury of including more weak data? > > JPK > > > -- > ******************************************* > Jacob Pearson Keller > Northwestern University > Medical Scientist Training Program > email: j-kell...@northwestern.edu > ******************************************* -- ******************************************* Jacob Pearson Keller Northwestern University Medical Scientist Training Program email: j-kell...@northwestern.edu *******************************************
