ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2023
Model-based evaluation of spatiotemporal data reduction methods with unknown ground truth through optimal visualization and interpretability metrics.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- PICDGI: A framework for predicting cancer driver genes through dynamic gene-gene interaction modeling of single-cell data.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Boosting data interpretation with GIBOOST to enhance visualization of complex high-dimensional data.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Fusion of spatiotemporal and network models to prioritize multiscale effects in single-cell perturbations.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Supervised analysis of alternative polyadenylation from single-cell and spatial transcriptomics data with spvAPA.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Article
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
Abstract
Optimizing and benchmarking data reduction methods for dynamic or spatial visualization and interpretation (DSVI) face challenges due to many factors, including data complexity, lack of ground truth, time-dependent metrics, dimensionality bias and different visual mappings of the same data. Current studies often focus on independent static visualization or interpretability metrics that require ground truth. To overcome this limitation, we propose the MIBCOVIS framework, a comprehensive and interpretable benchmarking and computational approach. MIBCOVIS enhances the visualization and interpretability of high-dimensional data without relying on ground truth by integrating five robust metrics, including a novel time-ordered Markov-based structural metric, into a semi-supervised hierarchical Bayesian model. The framework assesses method accuracy and considers interaction effects among metric features. We apply MIBCOVIS using linear and nonlinear dimensionality reduction methods to evaluate optimal DSVI for four distinct dynamic and spatial biological processes captured by three single-cell data modalities: CyTOF, scRNA-seq and CODEX. These data vary in complexity based on feature dimensionality, unknown cell types and dynamic or spatial differences. Unlike traditional single-summary score approaches, MIBCOVIS compares accuracy distributions across methods. Our findings underscore the joint evaluation of visualization and interpretability, rather than relying on separate metrics. We reveal that prioritizing average performance can obscure method feature performance. Additionally, we explore the impact of data complexity on visualization and interpretability. Specifically, we provide optimal parameters and features and recommend methods, like the optimized variational contractive autoencoder, for targeted DSVI for various data complexities. MIBCOVIS shows promise for evaluating dynamic single-cell atlases and spatiotemporal data reduction models.
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.