ArticleHereditas2025
Global trends in machine learning applications for single-cell transcriptomics research.
Article in Hereditas, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSingle-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) has revolutionized cellular heterogeneity analysis by decoding gene expression profiles at individual cell level, while machine learning (ML) has emerged as core computational tool for clustering analysis, dimensionality reduction modeling and developmental trajectory inference in single-cell transcriptomics(SCT). Although 3,307 papers have been published in past two decades, there remains lack of bibliometric review comprehensively addressing methodological evolution, technical challenges and clinical translation pathways. This study aims to fill research gap through bibliometric and visual analysis, revealing technological evolution trends and future development directions.
methodsUsing 3,307 publications from Web of Science Core Collection(WOSCC), we conducted bibliometric and visualization analysis through CiteSpace and VOSviewer to systematically review research trends, national/institutional contributions, keyword co-occurrence networks and co-citation relationships. Data screening strictly limited to English articles and reviews, excluding irrelevant document types, focusing on core application scenarios of ML in SCT.
resultsChina and United States dominated research output (combined 65%), with China leading in publication volume (54.8%) while US demonstrating academic influence through H-index 84 and 37,135 total citations. Research hotspots concentrated on random forest (RF) and deep learning models, showing transition from algorithm development to clinical applications (e.g., tumor immune microenvironment analysis). Chinese Academy of Sciences and Harvard University emerged as core collaboration hubs, with international cooperation network primarily featuring US-China collaboration. Keyword clustering revealed four themes: gene expression, immunotherapy, bioinformatics, and inflammation-related research. Technical bottlenecks included data heterogeneity, insufficient model interpretability and weak cross-dataset generalization capability.
conclusionML-scRNA-seq integration has advanced cellular heterogeneity analysis and precision medicine development. Future directions should optimize deep learning architectures, enhance model generalization capabilities, and promote technical translation through multi-omics and clinical data integration. Interdisciplinary collaboration represents key to overcoming current limitations (e.g., data standardization, algorithm interpretability), ultimately realizing deep integration between single-cell technologies and precision medicine.
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.