Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38172966›Full record

ArticleGenome biology2024

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

Haidong Yi, Alec Plotkin, Natalie Stanley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Haidong YiDepartment of Computer Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 27599, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Alec PlotkinCurriculum in Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 27599, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Natalie StanleyDepartment of Computer Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 27599, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. natalies@cs.unc.edu.

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
Automating the Discovery of Clinically-Relevant Intracellular Signaling Responses in Immune Cell-TypesR21AI171745 · NIAID · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI STANLEY, NATALIE M · 2023 to 2024
$400k
NIAID NIH HHS R21 AI171745NIGMS NIH HHS 5T32GM067553NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM067553NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM135123
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo analyze the large volume of data generated by single-cell technologies and to identify cellular correlates of particular clinical or experimental outcomes, differential abundance analyses are often applied. These algorithms identify subgroups of cells whose abundances change significantly in response to disease progression, or to an experimental perturbation. Despite the effectiveness of differential abundance analyses in identifying critical cell-states, there is currently no systematic benchmarking study to compare their applicability, usefulness, and accuracy in practice across single-cell modalities.

resultsHere, we perform a comprehensive benchmarking study to objectively evaluate and compare the benefits and potential downsides of current state-of-the-art differential abundance testing methods. We benchmarked six single-cell testing methods on several practical tasks, using both synthetic and real single-cell datasets. The tasks evaluated include effectiveness in identifying true differentially abundant subpopulations, accuracy in the adequate handling of batch effects, runtime efficiency, and hyperparameter usability and robustness. Based on various evaluation results, this paper gives dataset-specific suggestions for the practical use of differential abundance testing approaches.

conclusionsBased on our benchmarking study, we provide a set of recommendations for the optimal usage of single-cell DA testing methods in practice, particularly with respect to factors such as the presence of technical noise (for example batch effects), dataset size, and hyperparameter sensitivity.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBenchmarkingResearch DesignSingle-Cell AnalysisBenchmarkingClinical phenotypingDifferential abundance (DA)Single-cell bioinformatics

Identifiers

PMID38172966
PMCPMC10762948

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.