Analysis of Single-Cell RNA-seq Data by Clustering Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The recently developed single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) has attracted a great amount of attention due to its capability to interrogate expression of individual cells, which is superior to traditional bulk cell sequencing that can only measure mean gene expression of a population of cells. scRNA-seq has been successfully applied in finding new cell subtypes. New computational challenges exist in the analysis of scRNA-seq data. Objective: We provide an overview of the features of different similarity calculation and clustering methods, in order to facilitate users to select methods that are suitable for their scRNA-seq. We would also like to show that feature selection methods are important to improve clustering performance. Results: We first described similarity measurement methods, followed by reviewing some new clustering methods, as well as their algorithmic details. This analysis revealed several new questions, including how to automatically estimate the number of clustering categories, how to discover novel subpopulation, and how to search for new marker genes by using feature selection methods. Conclusion: Without prior knowledge about the number of cell types, clustering or semisupervised learning methods are important tools for exploratory analysis of scRNA-seq data.</P>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".