ArticleGenome biology2025
Benchmarking deep learning methods for biologically conserved single-cell integration.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Decoding epithelial-mesenchymal transitions with multi-omics.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026Review
- spMosaic: multi-sample integration for scalable spatial domain discovery based on spatial transcriptomics.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Benchmarking deep learning methods for biologically conserved single-cell integration.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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdvancements in single-cell RNA sequencing have enabled the analysis of millions of cells, but integrating such data across samples and methods while mitigating batch effects remains challenging. Deep learning approaches address this by learning biologically conserved gene expression representations, yet systematic benchmarking of loss functions and integration performance is lacking.
resultsWe evaluate 16 integration methods using a unified variational autoencoder framework, incorporating batch and cell-type information. Results reveal limitations in the single-cell integration benchmarking index (scIB) for preserving intra-cell-type information. To address this, we introduce a correlation-based loss function and enhance benchmarking metrics to better capture biological conservation. Using cell annotations from lung and breast atlases, our approach improves biological signal preservation. We propose a refined integration framework, scIB-E, and metrics that provide deeper insights into the integration process and offer guidance for advanced developments in integrating increasingly complex single-cell data.
conclusionsThis benchmark highlights the potential of deep learning-based approaches for single-cell data integration, emphasizing the importance of biologically informed metrics and improved benchmarking strategies.
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.