MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283698937 · doi:10.1101/gr.276609.122

Unsupervised cell functional annotation for single-cell RNA-seq

2022· article· en· W4283698937 on OpenAlexaff
Dongshunyi Li, Jun Ding, Ziv Bar‐Joseph

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
FundersNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesNational Cancer InstituteNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsCluster analysisBiologyComputational biologyGeneRNA-SeqCell typeAnnotationSet (abstract data type)Data setHierarchical clusteringGene AnnotationCellArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceGene expressionGeneticsGenomeTranscriptome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the first steps in the analysis of single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) data is the assignment of cell types. Although a number of supervised methods have been developed for this, in most cases such assignment is performed by first clustering cells in low-dimensional space and then assigning cell types to different clusters. To overcome noise and to improve cell type assignments, we developed UNIFAN, a neural network method that simultaneously clusters and annotates cells using known gene sets. UNIFAN combines both low-dimensional representation for all genes and cell-specific gene set activity scores to determine the clustering. We applied UNIFAN to human and mouse scRNA-seq data sets from several different organs. We show, by using knowledge about gene sets, that UNIFAN greatly outperforms prior methods developed for clustering scRNA-seq data. The gene sets assigned by UNIFAN to different clusters provide strong evidence for the cell type that is represented by this cluster, making annotations easier.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.332
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome ResearchSame topicSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomicsFrench-language works237,207