Cell Type Annotation Model Selection: General-Purpose vs. Pattern-Aware Feature Gene Selection in Single-Cell RNA-Seq Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the advances in high-throughput sequencing technology, an increasing amount of research in revealing heterogeneity among cells has been widely performed. Differences between individual cells' functionality are determined based on the differences in the gene expression profiles. Although the observations indicate a great performance of clustering methods, manual annotation of the clusters of cells is a challenge yet to be addressed more scalable and faster. On the other hand, due to the lack of enough labelled datasets, just a few supervised techniques have been used in cell type identification, and they obtained more robust results compared to clustering methods. A recent study showed that a complementary step of feature selection helped support vector machine (SVM) to outperform other classifiers in different scenarios. In this article, we compare and evaluate the performance of two state-of-the-art supervised methods, XGBoost and SVM, with information gain as a feature selection method. The results of the experiments on three standard scRNA-seq datasets indicate that XGBoost automatically annotates cell types in a simpler and more scalable framework. Additionally, it sheds light on the potential use of boosting tree approaches combined with deep neural networks to capture underlying information of single-cell RNA-Seq data more effectively. It can be used to identify marker genes and other applications in biological studies.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".