ArticleHeliyon2024
Identification of kidney cell types in scRNA-seq and snRNA-seq data using machine learning algorithms.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. 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.
- Partial domain adaptation enables cross domain cell type annotation between scRNA-seq and snRNA-seq.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Nephrology-State of the Art on Theoretical Background, Molecular Applications, and Clinical Interpretation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Single-cell expression and immune infiltration analysis of polyamine metabolism in breast cancer.Discover oncology · 2024Article
- Identification of kidney cell types in scRNA-seq and snRNA-seq data using machine learning algorithms.Heliyon · 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) and single-nucleus RNA sequencing (snRNA-seq) provide valuable insights into the cellular states of kidney cells. However, the annotation of cell types often requires extensive domain expertise and time-consuming manual curation, limiting scalability and generalizability. To facilitate this process, we tested the performance of five supervised classification methods for automatic cell type annotation. Results: We analyzed publicly available sc/snRNA-seq datasets from five expert-annotated studies, comprising 62,120 cells from 79 kidney biopsy samples. Datasets were integrated by harmonizing cell type annotations across studies. Five different supervised machine learning algorithms (support vector machines, random forests, multilayer perceptrons, k-nearest neighbors, and extreme gradient boosting) were applied to automatically annotate cell types using four training datasets and one testing dataset. Performance metrics, including accuracy (F1 score) and rejection rates, were evaluated. All five machine learning algorithms demonstrated high accuracies, with a median F1 score of 0.94 and a median rejection rate of 1.8 %. The algorithms performed equally well across different datasets and successfully rejected cell types that were not present in the training data. However, F1 scores were lower when models trained primarily on scRNA-seq data were tested on snRNA-seq data. Conclusions: Despite limitations including the number of biopsy samples, our findings demonstrate that machine learning algorithms can accurately annotate a wide range of adult kidney cell types in scRNA-seq/snRNA-seq data. This approach has the potential to standardize cell type annotation and facilitate further research on cellular mechanisms underlying kidney disease.
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.