ArticlePLoS computational biology2026
From noise to models to numbers: Evaluating negative binomial models and parameter estimations in single-cell RNA-seq.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 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.
- Integrating zero-inflation correction and transcriptional kinetics for single-cell transcriptomic analysis.PLoS computational biology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Negative Binomial (NB) distribution is widely used to approximate transcript count distributions in single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) data, yet the reason for its ubiquity is not fully understood. Here, we employ a computationally efficient model selection technique to map the relationship between the best-fit models - Beta-Poisson (Telegraph), NB, and Poisson - and the kinetic parameters that govern gene expression stochasticity. Our findings reveal that the NB distribution closely approximates simulated data (incorporating both biological and technical noise) within an intermediate range of the sum of the gene activation and inactivation rates normalized by the mRNA degradation rate. This range expands with decreasing mean expression, increasing technical noise, and larger sample sizes. The results imply that: (i) good NB fits occur in diverse parameter regimes without exclusively indicating transcriptional bursting; (ii) for small sample sizes, biological noise predominantly shapes the NB profile even when technical noise is present; (iii) under steady-state conditions, gene-specific parameters (burst size and frequency) estimated in regions where the NB model fits well, typically show large relative errors, even after corrections for technical noise, and (iv) gene ranking by burst frequency remains reliably accurate, suggesting that burst parameters are most informative in a relative sense. Finally, applying technical-noise-corrected model fitting to scRNA-seq data confirms that a substantial fraction of mammalian genes fall within these NB-fitting regimes, despite lacking transcriptional bursting.
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.