ArticleNature communications2026
Systematic benchmarking of ambient RNA decontamination tools to advance precision in single-cell transcriptomic analysis.
Article in Nature communications, 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.
- Systematic benchmarking of ambient RNA decontamination tools to advance precision in single-cell transcriptomic analysis.Nature communications · 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Single-cell RNA sequencing measures gene expression in individual cells, but RNA released from damaged cells can be captured alongside RNA from intact cells, producing spurious signals that affect cell identification and biological interpretation. Although many computational tools aim to remove ambient RNA, their relative performance has not been systematically evaluated.Using simulated and experimental datasets from diverse tissues and species, we assessed seven tools for accuracy in estimating contamination levels, robustness across biological and technical conditions, and sensitivity to subtype-specific contamination. Here we show that the tools have distinct strengths, underscoring the need to match methods to data characteristics and research goals. DecontX provides the most accurate contamination-level estimation. scAR is the most robust across conditions but tends to overestimate contamination, whereas CellClear performs best for resolving closely related cell subtypes. This benchmark guides method selection to improve the reliability of single-cell analyses and identifies priorities for future method development.
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.