ArticleComputational and structural biotechnology journal2025
Improving doublet cell removal efficiency through multiple algorithm runs.
Article in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Methodologies for Sample Multiplexing and Computational Deconvolution in Single-Cell Sequencing.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Doublets are a key confounding factor in the analysis of scRNA-seq data, as they can interfere with differential expression analysis and disrupt developmental trajectories. However, due to the randomness of the algorithms, most doublet removal methods still leave a certain proportion of doublets after application. In this study, we proposed a multi-round doublet removal (MRDR) strategy, that ran the algorithm in cycles multiple times to effectively reduce randomness while enhancing the effectiveness of doublet removal. We evaluated the MRDR strategy in 14 real-world datasets, 29 barcoded scRNA-seq datasets, and 106 synthetic datasets with four popular doublet detection tools, including DoubletFinder, cxds, bcds, and hybrid. We found that in real-world datasets, the DoubletFinder had a better performance in MRDR strategy compared to a single removal of doublets and the recall rate improved by 50 % for two rounds of doublet removal compared to one round, and the performance of the other three doublet algorithms improved the ROC by about 0.04. In barcoded scRNA-seq datasets, we found that using cxds for two rounds of doublet removal yielded the best results. Subsequently, in simulated datasets, we proved that the multi-round removal strategy was more effective in removing doublets than a single removal, with cxds showing the best results when applied twice, and the ROC of the four methods during the two rounds of removal improved by at least 0.05 compared to single removal. Finally, compared to running the algorithm once, we found that the MRDR strategy was more beneficial for differential gene expression analysis and cell trajectory inference when using default analysis parameters. Overall, we proved that the MRDR strategy was more effective in removing doublets and advantageous for downstream analyses, and the strategy could be incorporated into the standard analysis pipeline for scRNA-seq experiments and recommend using cxds to remove doublets through two rounds of algorithm iteration.
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.