ArticleBMC genomics2020
I-Impute: a self-consistent method to impute single cell RNA sequencing data.
Article in BMC genomics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Immune cell annotation in the single-cell studies: technologies, challenges, and integrative solutions.Immunologic research · 2026Review
- Inferring Alzheimer's disease pathologic traits from clinical measures in living adults.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Inferring Alzheimer's Disease Pathologic Traits from Clinical Measures in Living Adults.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2024Article
- Advancements in Genomic and Behavioral Neuroscience Analysis for the Study of Normal and Pathological Brain Function.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSingle-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) is becoming indispensable in the study of cell-specific transcriptomes. However, in scRNA-seq techniques, only a small fraction of the genes are captured due to "dropout" events. These dropout events require intensive treatment when analyzing scRNA-seq data. For example, imputation tools have been proposed to estimate dropout events and de-noise data. The performance of these imputation tools are often evaluated, or fine-tuned, using various clustering criteria based on ground-truth cell subgroup labels. This limits their effectiveness in the cases where we lack cell subgroup knowledge. We consider an alternative strategy which requires the imputation to follow a "self-consistency" principle; that is, the imputation process is to refine its results until there is no internal inconsistency or dropouts from the data.
resultsWe propose the use of "self-consistency" as a main criteria in performing imputation. To demonstrate this principle we devised I-Impute, a "self-consistent" method, to impute scRNA-seq data. I-Impute optimizes continuous similarities and dropout probabilities, in iterative refinements until a self-consistent imputation is reached. On the in silico data sets, I-Impute exhibited the highest Pearson correlations for different dropout rates consistently compared with the state-of-art methods SAVER and scImpute. Furthermore, we collected three wetlab datasets, mouse bladder cells dataset, embryonic stem cells dataset, and aortic leukocyte cells dataset, to evaluate the tools. I-Impute exhibited feasible cell subpopulation discovery efficacy on all the three datasets. It achieves the highest clustering accuracy compared with SAVER and scImpute.
conclusionsA strategy based on "self-consistency", captured through our method, I-Impute, gave imputation results better than the state-of-the-art tools. Source code of I-Impute can be accessed at https://github.com/xikanfeng2/I-Impute .
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.