ArticleBiochemistry and biophysics reports2026
Donor-specific, but not sex-specific, signatures dominate cell-type classification in lung scRNA-seq data.
Article in Biochemistry and biophysics reports, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transcriptomic differences between individuals and sexes are well-documented across tissues, affecting cell-type identity. Single-cell atlases often have skewed sex ratios or limited donor diversity, potentially leading to sex- or donor-biased annotations using automatic classification methods. This might cause models to exacerbate existing biases from their training data. We investigated this by varying the sex ratio in a training set and assessing a cell-type classifier's performance on fixed single-sex test sets. To separate sex and donor effects, we ran the experiment with and without donor information. We found that differences between donors negatively impact classification, as evidenced by poorer performance on unseen donors. However, this is not primarily due to sex bias; the model classified male and female cells similarly well, even when trained on highly sex-skewed data. We also found that large sex-based abundance differences between cell types can confound performance interpretation, creating apparent sex-biased patterns. Our findings suggest that atlas creators and classifier developers must carefully consider donor-specific biases 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.