ArticleGenome research2025
Highly accurate reference and method selection for universal cross-data set cell type annotation with CAMUS.
Article in Genome research, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cell type annotation is a critical and essential task in single-cell data analysis. Various reference-based methods have provided rapid annotation for diverse single-cell data. However, selection of the optimal references and methods is often overlooked. To this end, we present a cross-data set cell type annotation methodology with a universal reference data and method selection strategy (CAMUS) to achieve highly accurate and efficient annotations. We demonstrate the advantages of CAMUS by conducting comprehensive analyses on 672 pairs of cross-species scRNA-seq data sets. The annotation results with references selected by CAMUS achieves substantial accuracy gains (25.0%-124.7%) over random selection strategies across five reference-based methods. CAMUS achieves high accuracy in choosing the best reference-method pair among 3360 pairs (49.1%). Moreover, CAMUS shows high accuracy in selecting the best methods on the 80 scST data sets (82.5%) and five scATAC-seq data sets (100.0%), illustrating its universal applicability. In addition, we utilize the CAMUS score with other metrics to predict the annotation accuracy, providing direct guidance on whether to accept current annotation results.
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.