ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2023
Benchmarking differential abundance methods for finding condition-specific prototypical cells in multi-sample single-cell datasets.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.