Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36859475›Full record

ReviewMolecules and cells2023

Integration of Single-Cell RNA-Seq Datasets: A Review of Computational Methods.

Yeonjae Ryu, Geun Hee Han, Eunsoo Jung, Daehee Hwang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Molecules and cells, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Integrating Spatial Proteogenomics in Cancer Research.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Yeonjae RyuSchool of Biological Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3608-0885
Geun Hee HanSchool of Biological Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4723-3410
Eunsoo JungSchool of Biological Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2192-5603
Daehee HwangSchool of Biological Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7553-0044

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the increased number of single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) datasets in public repositories, integrative analysis of multiple scRNA-seq datasets has become commonplace. Batch effects among different datasets are inevitable because of differences in cell isolation and handling protocols, library preparation technology, and sequencing platforms. To remove these batch effects for effective integration of multiple scRNA-seq datasets, a number of methodologies have been developed based on diverse concepts and approaches. These methods have proven useful for examining whether cellular features, such as cell subpopulations and marker genes, identified from a certain dataset, are consistently present, or whether their condition-dependent variations, such as increases in cell subpopulations in particular disease-related conditions, are consistently observed in different datasets generated under similar or distinct conditions. In this review, we summarize the concepts and approaches of the integration methods and their pros and cons as has been reported in previous literature.

Indexed as

Single-Cell Gene Expression AnalysisGene Librarybatch correctiondata integrationsingle-cell RNA-seq

Identifiers

PMID36859475
PMCPMC9982060

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.