ArticleComputational and structural biotechnology journal2023
Exploring the optimization of autoencoder design for imputing single-cell RNA sequencing data.
Article in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 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.
- cytoGPNet: Enhancing clinical outcome prediction accuracy using longitudinal cytometry data in small cohort studies.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- DropDAE: Denosing Autoencoder with Contrastive Learning for Addressing Dropout Events in scRNA-seq Data.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Autoencoders are the backbones of many imputation methods that aim to relieve the sparsity issue in single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) data. The imputation performance of an autoencoder relies on both the neural network architecture and the hyperparameter choice. So far, literature in the single-cell field lacks a formal discussion on how to design the neural network and choose the hyperparameters. Here, we conducted an empirical study to answer this question. Our study used many real and simulated scRNA-seq datasets to examine the impacts of the neural network architecture, the activation function, and the regularization strategy on imputation accuracy and downstream analyses. Our results show that (i) deeper and narrower autoencoders generally lead to better imputation performance; (ii) the sigmoid and tanh activation functions consistently outperform other commonly used functions including ReLU; (iii) regularization improves the accuracy of imputation and downstream cell clustering and DE gene analyses. Notably, our results differ from common practices in the computer vision field regarding the activation function and the regularization strategy. Overall, our study offers practical guidance on how to optimize the autoencoder design for scRNA-seq data imputation.
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.