Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36909641›Full record

ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2023

Benchmarking differential abundance methods for finding condition-specific prototypical cells in multi-sample single-cell datasets.

Haidong Yi, Alec Plotkin, Natalie Stanley

Open access · greenAbstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Haidong YiDepartment of Computer Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Alec PlotkinCurriculum in Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Natalie StanleyDepartment of Computer Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

UNC Predoc Training Progr in Bioinformatics/Comp BiologyT32GM067553 · NIGMS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI ELSTON, TIMOTHY C · 2005 to 2019
$2.5M
Predoctoral Training Program in Bioinformatics and Computational BiologyT32GM135123 · NIGMS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Michael Isaiah Love, William Valdar · 2021 to 2026
$1.7M
NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM067553NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM135123Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Modern single-cell data analysis relies on statistical testing (e.g. differential expression testing) to identify genes or proteins that are up-or down-regulated in relation to cell-types or clinical outcomes. However, existing algorithms for such statistical testing are often limited by technical noise and cellular heterogeneity, which lead to false-positive results. To constrain the analysis to a compact and phenotype-related cell population, differential abundance (DA) testing methods were employed to identify subgroups of cells whose abundance changed significantly in response to disease progression, or experimental perturbation. Despite the effectiveness of DA testing algorithms of identifying critical cell-states, there are no systematic benchmarking or comparative studies to compare their usages in practice. Herein, we performed the first comprehensive benchmarking study to objectively evaluate and compare the benefits and potential downsides of current state-of-the-art DA testing methods. We benchmarked six DA testing methods on several practical tasks, using both synthetic and real single-cell datasets. The task evaluated include, recognizing true DA subpopulations, appropriate handing of batch effects, runtime efficiency, and hyperparameter usability and robustness. Based on various evaluation results, this paper gives dataset-specific suggestions for the usage of DA testing methods.

Identifiers

PMID36909641
PMCPMC10002703
OpenAlexW4322491939

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.