ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Benchmarking scRNA-seq Copy Number Inference: A Comprehensive Evaluation and Practitioner's Guide.
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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurately inferring copy number variation (CNV) from scRNA-seq data is critical for identifying malignant cells, reconstructing tumor subclonal architecture, and uncovering the genomic drivers that dictate cancer cell biology. However, the performance of existing tools varies significantly, and current benchmarks lack the breadth of datasets and methods necessary to provide definitive guidance. We present a comprehensive benchmark of 12 CNV inference methods across 28 real datasets (>100,000 cells) and diverse synthetic datasets. By evaluating methods based on malignant cell classification accuracy, CNV inference accuracy, scalability, and robustness, we establish a definitive practitioner's guideline: allele-aware methods like Numbat excel when high-quality allelic inference can be achieved, whereas expression-centric tools such as Clonalscope, CopyKAT, inferCNV, and SCEVAN remain reliable when raw sequencing data are unavailable. Our study provides both a practical decision-making framework for researchers and a public repository of standardized CNV profiles to catalyze further methodological innovation.
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.