ArticleBMC bioinformatics2025
Soft graph clustering for single-cell RNA sequencing data.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClustering analysis is fundamental in single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) data analysis for elucidating cellular heterogeneity and diversity. Recent graph-based scRNA-seq clustering methods, particularly graph neural networks (GNNs), have significantly improved in tackling the challenges of high-dimension, high-sparsity, and frequent dropout events that lead to ambiguous cell population boundaries. However, one major challenge for GNN-based methods is their reliance on hard graph constructions derived from similarity matrices. These constructions introduce difficulties when applied to scRNA-seq data due to: (i) The simplification of intercellular relationships into binary edges (0 or 1) by applying thresholds, which restricts the capture of continuous similarity features among cells and leads to significant information loss. (ii) The presence of significant inter-cluster connections within hard graphs, which can confuse GNN methods that rely heavily on graph structures, potentially causing erroneous message propagation and biased clustering outcomes.
resultsTo tackle these challenges, we introduce scSGC, a Soft Graph Clustering for single-cell RNA sequencing data, which aims to more accurately characterize continuous similarities among cells through non-binary edge weights, thereby mitigating the limitations of rigid data structures. The scSGC framework comprises three core components: (i) a zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB)-based feature autoencoder designed to effectively handle the sparsity and dropout issues in scRNA-seq data; (ii) a dual-channel cut-informed soft graph embedding module, constructed through deep graph-cut information, capturing continuous similarities between cells while preserving the intrinsic data structures of scRNA-seq; and (iii) an optimal transport-based clustering optimization module, achieving optimal delineation of cell populations while maintaining high biological relevance.
conclusionBy integrating dual-channel cut-informed soft graph representation learning, a ZINB-based feature autoencoder, and optimal transport-driven clustering optimization, scSGC effectively overcomes the challenges associated with traditional hard graph constructions in GNN methods. Extensive experiments across ten datasets demonstrate that scSGC outperforms 13 state-of-the-art clustering models in clustering accuracy, cell type annotation, and computational efficiency. These results highlight its substantial potential to advance scRNA-seq data analysis and deepen our understanding of cellular heterogeneity.
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.