Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38307875›Full record

ArticleNature communications2024

The impacts of active and self-supervised learning on efficient annotation of single-cell expression data.

Michael J Geuenich, Dae-Won Gong, Kieran R Campbell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Michael J GeuenichLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, M5G 1×5, Canada. mgeuenich@lunenfeld.ca.ORCID 0009-0001-8211-3070
Dae-Won GongLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, M5G 1×5, Canada.
Kieran R CampbellLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, M5G 1×5, Canada. kierancampbell@lunenfeld.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-1981-5763

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A crucial step in the analysis of single-cell data is annotating cells to cell types and states. While a myriad of approaches has been proposed, manual labeling of cells to create training datasets remains tedious and time-consuming. In the field of machine learning, active and self-supervised learning methods have been proposed to improve the performance of a classifier while reducing both annotation time and label budget. However, the benefits of such strategies for single-cell annotation have yet to be evaluated in realistic settings. Here, we perform a comprehensive benchmarking of active and self-supervised labeling strategies across a range of single-cell technologies and cell type annotation algorithms. We quantify the benefits of active learning and self-supervised strategies in the presence of cell type imbalance and variable similarity. We introduce adaptive reweighting, a heuristic procedure tailored to single-cell data-including a marker-aware version-that shows competitive performance with existing approaches. In addition, we demonstrate that having prior knowledge of cell type markers improves annotation accuracy. Finally, we summarize our findings into a set of recommendations for those implementing cell type annotation procedures or platforms. An R package implementing the heuristic approaches introduced in this work may be found at https://github.com/camlab-bioml/leader .

Indexed as

AlgorithmsMachine LearningAwarenessSingle-Cell AnalysisSupervised Machine LearningTechnology

Identifiers

PMID38307875
PMCPMC10837127

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.