ArticleMolecular genetics and genomics : MGG2026
Comparison between a conventional tool and deep learning models for RNA velocity analysis of scRNA-Seq data.
Article in Molecular genetics and genomics : MGG, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-Seq) enables analysis of gene expression at single-cell resolution. RNA velocity analysis infers the temporal dynamics of transcriptional states from the relative abundances of spliced/unspliced mRNA quantified via scRNA-Seq. Classical RNA velocity approaches, such as scVelo, implement gene-specific kinetic modeling. Deep learning methods including DeepVelo, VeloVI, LatentVelo, SymVelo, and scTour are based on variational autoencoders (VAEs), which allow to enhance the robustness and accuracy by leveraging nonlinear latent representations. Here, we systematically evaluated the performance of deep learning RNA velocity tools by comparing with the scVelo dynamical model to access the possible advantages of VAE-base methods. For this purpose, public datasets (GSE149689 and GSE203233) were initially processed using a standard scRNA-Seq pipeline. Comparisons among results of selected velocity tools were conducted using cosine similarity of velocity vectors to assess directional concordance, and by mean squared error analysis of trajectory continuity for the deep learning models. Overall, VAE methods produced significant, richer, and more directionally coherent and consistent velocity fields than the classical model. Our findings indicate that deep learning models provide more consistent and biologically plausible cell-state trajectories, although at the expense of higher computational demands and reliance on accurate splicing quantification. Altogether, our results underscore the relevance of VAE-based frameworks to advance RNA velocity analysis while highlighting the need for careful preprocessing.
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.