ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2026
Evaluating reference-mixture matching in cell-type deconvolution with single-cell RNA-seq references.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate estimation of cell-type composition from bulk RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) is critical for dissecting the cellular basis of disease. Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) has emerged as a preferred reference for cell-type deconvolution. However, in practice, scRNA-seq references often differ from the target bulk samples in terms of clinical condition or cohort composition, potentially degrading performance. Here, we systematically evaluate deconvolution methods under varying reference matching conditions, using a scRNA-seq dataset of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from managed lupus patients and healthy controls. We constructed four scRNA-seq references: (i) 20 lupus patients, (ii) 20 healthy controls, (iii) 10 lupus patients + 10 controls, and (iv) 20 lupus patients + 20 controls. We simulated bulk RNA-seq mixtures with known cell-type proportions from scRNA-seq generated on independent lupus patients and healthy controls from the same study and evaluated the performance of seven cell-type deconvolution algorithms (CIBERSORTx S-mode, CIBERSORTx NS-mode, MuSiC2, InstaPrism, BLADE, DISSECT, Scaden) when using matched, mis-matched, and mixed scRNA-seq references. We also evaluated the performance on a publicly available bulk RNA-seq PBMC dataset with cell-type proportions estimated by flow cytometry. Performance is assessed via root-mean-squared error, Pearson correlation, and Lin's concordance correlation coefficients. Our results show that the choice of method has a greater impact on deconvolution accuracy than the degree of reference matching. DISSECT consistently achieved the best performance. Reference-matching effects were more pronounced for regression-based methods such as CIBERSORTx and MuSiC2. Overall, we recommend using robust methods like DISSECT and employing matched references when available.
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.