A Systematic Evaluation of Methods for Cell Phenotype Classification Using Single-Cell RNA Sequencing Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) yields valuable insights about gene expression and gives critical information about complex tissue cellular composition. In the analysis of single-cell RNA sequencing, the annotations of cell subtypes are often done manually, which is time-consuming and irreproducible. Garnett is a cell-type annotation software based the on elastic net method. Beside cell-type annotation, supervised machine learning methods can also be applied to predict other cell phenotypes from genomic data. Despite the popularity of such applications, there is no existing study to systematically investigate the performance of those supervised algorithms in various sizes of scRNA-seq data sets. Methods and Results: This study evaluates 13 popular supervised machine learning algorithms to classify cell phenotypes, using published real and simulated data sets with diverse cell sizes. The benchmark contained two parts. In the first part, we used real data sets to assess the popular supervised algorithms’ computing speed and cell phenotype classification performance. The classification performances were evaluated using AUC statistics, F1-score, precision, recall, and false-positive rate. In the second part, we evaluated gene selection performance using published simulated data sets with a known list of real genes. Conclusion: The study outcomes showed that ElasticNet with interactions performed best in small and medium data sets. NB was another appropriate method for medium data sets. In large data sets, XGB works excellent. Ensemble algorithms were not significantly superior to individual machine learning methods. Adding interactions to ElasticNet can help, and the improvement was significant in small data sets.
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 | 0.016 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".