ArticleGenes2023
Cell Type Annotation Model Selection: General-Purpose vs. Pattern-Aware Feature Gene Selection in Single-Cell RNA-Seq Data.
Article in Genes, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computational tracking of cell origins using CellSexID from single-cell transcriptomes.Cell reports methods · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the advances in high-throughput sequencing technology, an increasing amount of research in revealing heterogeneity among cells has been widely performed. Differences between individual cells' functionality are determined based on the differences in the gene expression profiles. Although the observations indicate a great performance of clustering methods, manual annotation of the clusters of cells is a challenge yet to be addressed more scalable and faster. On the other hand, due to the lack of enough labelled datasets, just a few supervised techniques have been used in cell type identification, and they obtained more robust results compared to clustering methods. A recent study showed that a complementary step of feature selection helped support vector machine (SVM) to outperform other classifiers in different scenarios. In this article, we compare and evaluate the performance of two state-of-the-art supervised methods, XGBoost and SVM, with information gain as a feature selection method. The results of the experiments on three standard scRNA-seq datasets indicate that XGBoost automatically annotates cell types in a simpler and more scalable framework. Additionally, it sheds light on the potential use of boosting tree approaches combined with deep neural networks to capture underlying information of single-cell RNA-Seq data more effectively. It can be used to identify marker genes and other applications in biological studies.
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.