MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation of methods to assign cell type labels to cell clusters from single-cell RNA-sequencing data

2019· preprint· en· W4256385088 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueF1000Research · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesChan Zuckerberg InitiativeSilicon Valley Community Foundation
KeywordsCell typeCellComputer scienceComputational biologyCluster analysisDimensionality reductionGene expressionData miningGeneArtificial intelligenceBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Background:</ns4:bold> 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 the fact that some dedicated methods are available only as web servers with limited cell type gene expression signatures. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Methods:</ns4:bold> 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. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Results:</ns4:bold> 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 area under the curve (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). </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Conclusions:</ns4:bold> 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 <ns4:ext-link xmlns:ns3="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="uri" ns3:href="https://github.com/jdime/scRNAseq_cell_cluster_labeling">https://github.com/jdime/scRNAseq_cell_cluster_labeling</ns4:ext-link> . </ns4: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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.279
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.149 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it