ArticleGenome biology2025
Comparative benchmarking of single-cell clustering algorithms for transcriptomic and proteomic data.
Article in Genome 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.
- Article
- Human Systems Immunology in the Omics Era: Challenges, Methods, and Emerging Directions.European journal of immunology · 2026Review
- STRIVE: interpretable multimodal subtype discovery in Women's cancers using an attention-weighted joint variational autoencoder.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Comparative benchmarking of single-cell clustering algorithms for transcriptomic and proteomic data.Genome biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDifferences in data distribution, feature dimensions, and quality between different single-cell modalities pose challenges for clustering. Although clustering algorithms have been developed for single-cell transcriptomic or proteomic data, their performance across different omics data types and integration scenarios remains poorly investigated, which limits the selection of methods and future method development.
resultsIn this study, we conduct a systematic and comparative benchmark analysis of 28 computational algorithms on 10 paired transcriptomic and proteomic datasets, evaluating their performance across various metrics in terms of clustering, peak memory, and running time. We also discuss the impact of highly variable genes (HVGs) and cell type granularity on clustering performance. Additionally, the robustness of these clustering methods on two kinds of omics is evaluating by using 30 simulated datasets. Furthermore, to explore the benefits of integrating omics information for clustering tasks, we integrate single-cell transcriptomic and proteomic data using 7 state-of-the-art integration methods and assess the performance of existing single-omics clustering schemes on the integrated features.
conclusionsOur findings reveal modality-specific strengths and limitations, highlight the complementary nature of existing methods, and provide actionable insights to guide the selection of appropriate clustering approaches for specific scenarios. Overall, for top performance across two omics, consider scAIDE, scDCC, and FlowSOM, with FlowSOM also offering excellent robustness. For users prioritizing memory efficiency scDCC and scDeepCluster are recommended, while TSCAN, SHARP, and MarkovHC are recommended for users who prioritize time efficiency, and community detection-based methods offer a balance.
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.