The differential impacts of dataset imbalance in single-cell data integration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Single-cell transcriptomic data measured across distinct samples has led to a surge in computational methods for data integration. Few studies have explicitly examined the common case of cell-type imbalance between datasets to be integrated, and none have characterized its impact on downstream analyses. To address this gap, we developed the Iniquitate pipeline for assessing the stability of single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) integration results after perturbing the degree of imbalance between datasets. Through benchmarking 5 state-of-the-art scRNA-seq integration techniques in 1600 perturbed integration scenarios for a multi-sample peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) dataset, our results indicate that sample imbalance has significant impacts on downstream analyses and the biological interpretation of integration results. We observed significant variation in clustering, cell-type classification, marker gene-based annotation, and query-to-reference mapping in imbalanced settings. Two key factors were found to lead to quantitation differences after scRNA-seq integration - the cell-type imbalance within and between samples ( relative cell-type support ) and the relatedness of cell-types across samples ( minimum cell-type center distance ). To account for evaluation gaps in imbalanced contexts, we developed novel clustering metrics robust to sample imbalance, including the balanced Adjusted Rand Index (bARI) and balanced Adjusted Mutual Information (bAMI). Our analysis quantifies biologically-relevant effects of dataset imbalance in integration scenarios and introduces guidelines and novel metrics for integration of disparate datasets. The Iniquitate pipeline and balanced clustering metrics are available at https://github.com/hsmaan/Iniquitate and https://github.com/hsmaan/balanced-clustering , respectively.
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 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".