ReviewNature cell biology2025
Biases in machine-learning models of human single-cell data.
Review in Nature cell biology, 2025. 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.
- Donor-specific, but not sex-specific, signatures dominate cell-type classification in lung scRNA-seq data.Biochemistry and biophysics reports · 2026Article
- Adaptive resampling for improved machine learning in imbalanced single-cell datasets.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Predicting Ecological Risks ofBiology · 2025Article
- Federated multimodal AI for precision-equitable diabetes care.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent machine-learning (ML)-based advances in single-cell data science have enabled the stratification of human tissue donors at single-cell resolution, promising to provide valuable diagnostic and prognostic insights. However, such insights are susceptible to biases. Here we discuss various biases that emerge along the pipeline of ML-based single-cell analysis, ranging from societal biases affecting whose samples are collected, to clinical and cohort biases that influence the generalizability of single-cell datasets, biases stemming from single-cell sequencing, ML biases specific to (weakly supervised or unsupervised) ML models trained on human single-cell samples and biases during the interpretation of results from ML models. We end by providing methods for single-cell data scientists to assess and mitigate biases, and call for efforts to address the root causes of biases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39972066What 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.