ArticleCommunications biology2021
Comparison of bias and resolvability in single-cell and single-transcript methods.
Article in Communications biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Single-cell detection and quantification of the microbiota by MicFLY.Cell host & microbe · 2026Article
- Single-cell quantification of the microbiota by flow cytometry: MicFLY.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Evaluating performance and applications of sample-wise cell deconvolution methods on human brain transcriptomic data.Science advances · 2024Article
- Article
- Evaluating performance and applications of sample-wise cell deconvolution methods on human brain transcriptomic data.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Single-cell measurement quality in bits.PloS one · 2022Article
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
Single-cell and single-transcript measurement methods have elevated our ability to understand and engineer biological systems. However, defining and comparing performance between methods remains a challenge, in part due to the confounding effects of experimental variability. Here, we propose a generalizable framework for performing multiple methods in parallel using split samples, so that experimental variability is shared between methods. We demonstrate the utility of this framework by performing 12 different methods in parallel to measure the same underlying reference system for cellular response. We compare method performance using quantitative evaluations of bias and resolvability. We attribute differences in method performance to steps along the measurement process such as sample preparation, signal detection, and choice of measurand. Finally, we demonstrate how this framework can be used to benchmark different methods for single-transcript detection. The framework we present here provides a practical way to compare performance of any methods.
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.