A comparison of data integration methods for single-cell RNA sequencing of cancer samples
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Tumours are routinely profiled with single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) to characterize their diverse cellular ecosystems of malignant, immune, and stromal cell types. When combining data from multiple samples or studies, batch-specific technical variation can confound biological signals. However, scRNA-seq batch integration methods are often not designed for, or benchmarked, on datasets containing cancer cells. Here, we compare 5 data integration tools applied to 171,206 cells from 5 tumour scRNA-seq datasets. Based on our results, STACAS and fastMNN are the most suitable methods for integrating tumour datasets, demonstrating robust batch effect correction while preserving relevant biological variability in the malignant compartment. This comparison provides a framework for evaluating how well single-cell integration methods correct for technical variability while preserving biological heterogeneity of malignant and non-malignant cell populations.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it