ArticleGenome biology2024
Benchmarking differential abundance methods for finding condition-specific prototypical cells in multi-sample single-cell datasets.
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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identification of cycling regulatory T cell precursors as conductors of immune escape during breast carcinoma progression.Cancer cell · 2026Article
- Benchmarking the prediction of responding cells to perturbations affecting both gene expression and cellular abundance using scRNA sequencing.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- SOFisher: reinforcement learning-guided experiment designs for spatial omics.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Single-cell differential abundance detection: A new angle on dissecting tumor heterogeneity.World journal of clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Interpretable Differential Abundance Signature (iDAS).Small methods · 2026Article
- CellPhenoX: An Explainable Machine Learning Method for Identifying Cell Phenotypes To Predict Clinical Outcomes from Single-Cell Multi-Omics.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- reDA: differential abundance testing on scATAC-seq data using random walk with restart.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Comparing phenotypic manifolds with Kompot: Detecting differential abundance and gene expression at single-cell resolution.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Understanding rheumatic disease through continuous cell state analysis.Nature reviews. Rheumatology · 2025Review
- A pan-immune panorama of bacterial pneumonia revealed by a large-scale single-cell transcriptome atlas.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2025Article
- Chemotherapy induces myeloid-driven spatially confined T cell exhaustion in ovarian cancer.Cancer cell · 2024Article
- Chemotherapy induces myeloid-driven spatial T-cell exhaustion in ovarian cancer.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Benchmarking differential abundance methods for finding condition-specific prototypical cells in multi-sample single-cell datasets.Genome biology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
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.