ArticleCell reports methods2026
Evaluation of statistical differential analysis methods for identification of senescent cells using single-cell transcriptomics.
Article in Cell reports methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Transcriptomic Analysis Reveals HowLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Differential gene expression (DGE) analysis is a crucial step in identifying senescent cells using single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) data. However, few studies have evaluated the performance of DGE methods-particularly those implemented in the widely used Seurat package. In this study, we systematically assessed 10 DGE methods available in Seurat-Wilcox, Wilcox-limma, bimod, roc, t, negbinom, Poisson, LR, MAST, and DESeq2-using simulated and real scRNA-seq datasets. We evaluated each method's performance across varying sample sizes, levels of sparsity, and proportions of truly differentially expressed genes. Metrics assessed included false discovery rate (FDR), sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC). Among all methods, DESeq2 consistently demonstrated the best overall performance, showing the highest AUC and AUPRC across all tested conditions. Based on our findings, we recommend DESeq2 as the preferred method for DGE analysis in scRNA-seq data.
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.