scAnnotate: an automated cell-type annotation tool for single-cell RNA-sequencing data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motivation: Single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) technology enables researchers to investigate a genome at the cellular level with unprecedented resolution. An organism consists of a heterogeneous collection of cell types, each of which plays a distinct role in various biological processes. Hence, the first step of scRNA-seq data analysis is often to distinguish cell types so they can be investigated separately. Researchers have recently developed several automated cell-type annotation tools, requiring neither biological knowledge nor subjective human decisions. Dropout is a crucial characteristic of scRNA-seq data widely used in differential expression analysis. However, no current cell annotation method explicitly utilizes dropout information. Fully utilizing dropout information motivated this work. Results: We present scAnnotate, a cell annotation tool that fully utilizes dropout information. We model every gene's marginal distribution using a mixture model, which describes both the dropout proportion and the distribution of the non-dropout expression levels. Then, using an ensemble machine learning approach, we combine the mixture models of all genes into a single model for cell-type annotation. This combining approach can avoid estimating numerous parameters in the high-dimensional joint distribution of all genes. Using 14 real scRNA-seq datasets, we demonstrate that scAnnotate is competitive against nine existing annotation methods. Furthermore, because of its distinct modelling strategy, scAnnotate's misclassified cells differ greatly from competitor methods. This suggests using scAnnotate together with other methods could further improve annotation accuracy. Availability and implementation: We implemented scAnnotate as an R package and made it publicly available from CRAN: https://cran.r-project.org/package=scAnnotate. Supplementary information: online.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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".