Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38441258›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2024

Uncertainty-aware single-cell annotation with a hierarchical reject option.

Lauren Theunissen, Thomas Mortier, Yvan Saeys, Willem Waegeman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Lauren TheunissenDepartment of Data Analysis and Mathematical Modelling, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-1883-2310
Thomas MortierDepartment of Data Analysis and Mathematical Modelling, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Yvan SaeysData Mining and Modelling for Biomedicine, VIB Center for Inflammation Research, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-0415-1506
Willem WaegemanDepartment of Data Analysis and Mathematical Modelling, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-5950-3003

Funding

Flanders AI Research Program
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationAutomatic cell type annotation methods assign cell type labels to new datasets by extracting relationships from a reference RNA-seq dataset. However, due to the limited resolution of gene expression features, there is always uncertainty present in the label assignment. To enhance the reliability and robustness of annotation, most machine learning methods address this uncertainty by providing a full reject option, i.e. when the predicted confidence score of a cell type label falls below a user-defined threshold, no label is assigned and no prediction is made. As a better alternative, some methods deploy hierarchical models and consider a so-called partial rejection by returning internal nodes of the hierarchy as label assignment. However, because a detailed experimental analysis of various rejection approaches is missing in the literature, there is currently no consensus on best practices.

resultsWe evaluate three annotation approaches (i) full rejection, (ii) partial rejection, and (iii) no rejection for both flat and hierarchical probabilistic classifiers. Our findings indicate that hierarchical classifiers are superior when rejection is applied, with partial rejection being the preferred rejection approach, as it preserves a significant amount of label information. For optimal rejection implementation, the rejection threshold should be determined through careful examination of a method's rejection behavior. Without rejection, flat and hierarchical annotation perform equally well, as long as the cell type hierarchy accurately captures transcriptomic relationships. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Code is freely available at https://github.com/Latheuni/Hierarchical_reject and https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10697468.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingTranscriptomeMachine LearningReproducibility of ResultsSequence Analysis, RNASingle-Cell AnalysisUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID38441258
PMCPMC10957513

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.