Evaluation of single-cell RNAseq labelling algorithms using cancer datasets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) clustering and labelling methods are used to determine precise cellular composition of tissue samples. Automated labelling methods rely on either unsupervised, cluster-based approaches or supervised, cell-based approaches to identify cell types. The high complexity of cancer poses a unique challenge, as tumor microenvironments are often composed of diverse cell subpopulations with unique functional effects that may lead to disease progression, metastasis and treatment resistance. Here, we assess 17 cell-based and 9 cluster-based scRNA-seq labelling algorithms using 8 cancer datasets, providing a comprehensive large-scale assessment of such methods in a cancer-specific context. Using several performance metrics, we show that cell-based methods generally achieved higher performance and were faster compared to cluster-based methods. Cluster-based methods more successfully labelled non-malignant cell types, likely because of a lack of gene signatures for relevant malignant cell subpopulations. Larger cell numbers present in some cell types in training data positively impacted prediction scores for cell-based methods. Finally, we examined which methods performed favorably when trained and tested on separate patient cohorts in scenarios similar to clinical applications, and which were able to accurately label particularly small or under-represented cell populations in the given datasets. We conclude that scPred and SVM show the best overall performances with cancer-specific data and provide further suggestions for algorithm selection. Our analysis pipeline for assessing the performance of cell type labelling algorithms is available in https://github.com/shooshtarilab/scRNAseq-Automated-Cell-Type-Labelling.
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 | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".