Evaluation of methods to assign cell type labels to cell clusters from single-cell RNAsequencing data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Identification of cell type subpopulations from complex cell mixtures using single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) data includes automated computational steps like data normalization, dimensionality reduction and cell clustering. However, assigning cell type labels to cell clusters is still conducted manually by most researchers, resulting in limited documentation, low reproducibility and uncontrolled vocabularies. Two bottlenecks to automating this task are the scarcity of reference cell type gene expression signatures and that some dedicated methods are available only as web servers with limited cell type gene expression signatures. In this study, we benchmarked four methods (CIBERSORT, GSEA, GSVA, and ORA) for the task of assigning cell type labels to cell clusters from scRNA-seq data. We used scRNA-seq datasets from liver, peripheral blood mononuclear cells and retinal neurons for which reference cell type gene expression signatures were available. Our results show that, in general, all four methods show a high performance in the task as evaluated by Receiver Operating Characteristic curve analysis (average AUC = 0.94, sd = 0.036), whereas Precision-Recall curve analyses show a wide variation depending on the method and dataset (average AUC = 0.53, sd = 0.24). CIBERSORT and GSVA were the top two performers. Additionally, GSVA was the fastest of the four methods and was more robust in cell type gene expression signature subsampling simulations. We provide an extensible framework to evaluate other methods and datasets at https://github.com/jdime/scRNAseq_cell_cluster_labeling .
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 | 0.024 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".