Bayesian correlation is a robust gene similarity measure for single-cell RNA-seq data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessing similarity is highly important for bioinformatics algorithms to determine correlations between biological information. A common problem is that similarity can appear by chance, particularly for low expressed entities. This is especially relevant in single-cell RNA-seq (scRNA-seq) data because read counts are much lower compared to bulk RNA-seq. Recently, a Bayesian correlation scheme that assigns low similarity to genes that have low confidence expression estimates has been proposed to assess similarity for bulk RNA-seq. Our goal is to extend the properties of the Bayesian correlation in scRNA-seq data by considering three ways to compute similarity. First, we compute the similarity of pairs of genes over all cells. Second, we identify specific cell populations and compute the correlation in those populations. Third, we compute the similarity of pairs of genes over all clusters, by considering the total mRNA expression. We demonstrate that Bayesian correlations are more reproducible than Pearson correlations. Compared to Pearson correlations, Bayesian correlations have a smaller dependence on the number of input cells. We show that the Bayesian correlation algorithm assigns high similarity values to genes with a biological relevance in a specific population. We conclude that Bayesian correlation is a robust similarity measure in scRNA-seq data.
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 | 0.009 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".