ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
A unified framework enables accessible deployment and comprehensive benchmarking of single-cell foundation models.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recent years have seen rapid growth in single-cell foundation models (scFMs), raising expectations for transformative advances in genomic data analysis. However, their adoption has been hindered by inconsistent performance across datasets, fragmented software ecosystems, high technical barriers, and the lack of best practices established through systematic, reproducible benchmarks. Here we present a unified, extensible, and fully automated computational framework that standardizes the execution, evaluation, and extension of diverse scFMs. The framework harmonizes software environments, eliminates manual configuration, and enables large-scale, reproducible evaluation across heterogeneous datasets and training regimes. Leveraging this infrastructure, we systematically benchmark thirteen foundation models alongside classical baselines across more than fifty datasets under zero-shot, few-shot, and fine-tuning settings. We show that pretrained embeddings capture biologically meaningful structure and provide clear advantages in low-label and transfer-learning scenarios, while classical PCA approach remains competitive or even preferable in others. Together, this work lowers technical barriers, delivers best practices, and establishes a transparent and reproducible standard for community-wide evaluation, accelerating rigorous development and adoption of scFMs.
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.