ArticleScientific reports2021
Synthetic single cell RNA sequencing data from small pilot studies using deep generative models.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Navigating AI and machine learning in cancer research: an end-to-end translational framework.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Review
- An ELIXIR scoping review on domain-specific evaluation metrics for synthetic data in life sciences.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2026Article
- A novel paradigm for single-cell annotation in stem cell research.Stem cell reports · 2025Review
- Evaluating discrepancies in dimensionality reduction for time-series single-cell RNA-sequencing data.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Optimizing sample size for supervised machine learning with bulk transcriptomic sequencing: a learning curve approach.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Single-cell RNA-seq data augmentation using generative Fourier transformer.Communications biology · 2025Article
- Deep learning based deconvolution methods: A systematic review.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Review
- VI-VS: calibrated identification of feature dependencies in single-cell multiomics.Genome biology · 2024Article
- Article
- GeneSPIDER2: large scale GRN simulation and benchmarking with perturbed single-cell data.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2024Article
- Applications of single-cell RNA sequencing in drug discovery and development.Nature reviews. Drug discovery · 2023Review
- Interpretable generative deep learning: an illustration with single cell gene expression data.Human genetics · 2022Review
- The performance of deep generative models for learning joint embeddings of single-cell multi-omics data.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deep generative models, such as variational autoencoders (VAEs) or deep Boltzmann machines (DBMs), can generate an arbitrary number of synthetic observations after being trained on an initial set of samples. This has mainly been investigated for imaging data but could also be useful for single-cell transcriptomics (scRNA-seq). A small pilot study could be used for planning a full-scale experiment by investigating planned analysis strategies on synthetic data with different sample sizes. It is unclear whether synthetic observations generated based on a small scRNA-seq dataset reflect the properties relevant for subsequent data analysis steps. We specifically investigated two deep generative modeling approaches, VAEs and DBMs. First, we considered single-cell variational inference (scVI) in two variants, generating samples from the posterior distribution, the standard approach, or the prior distribution. Second, we propose single-cell deep Boltzmann machines (scDBMs). When considering the similarity of clustering results on synthetic data to ground-truth clustering, we find that the [Formula: see text] variant resulted in high variability, most likely due to amplifying artifacts of small datasets. All approaches showed mixed results for cell types with different abundance by overrepresenting highly abundant cell types and missing less abundant cell types. With increasing pilot dataset sizes, the proportions of the cells in each cluster became more similar to that of ground-truth data. We also showed that all approaches learn the univariate distribution of most genes, but problems occurred with bimodality. Across all analyses, in comparing 10[Formula: see text] Genomics and Smart-seq2 technologies, we could show that for 10[Formula: see text] datasets, which have higher sparsity, it is more challenging to make inference from small to larger datasets. Overall, the results show that generative deep learning approaches might be valuable for supporting the design of scRNA-seq experiments.
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.