Beyond benchmarking and towards predictive models of dataset-specific single-cell RNA-seq pipeline performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The advent of single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) has driven significant computational methods development for all steps in the scRNA-seq data analysis pipeline, including filtering, normalization, and clustering. The large number of methods and their resulting parameter combinations has created a combinatorial set of possible pipelines to analyze scRNA-seq data, which leads to the obvious question: which is best? Several benchmarking studies compare methods but frequently find variable performance depending on dataset and pipeline characteristics. Alternatively, the large number of scRNA-seq datasets along with advances in supervised machine learning raise a tantalizing possibility: could the optimal pipeline be predicted for a given dataset? RESULTS: Here, we begin to answer this question by applying 288 scRNA-seq analysis pipelines to 86 datasets and quantifying pipeline success via a range of measures evaluating cluster purity and biological plausibility. We build supervised machine learning models to predict pipeline success given a range of dataset and pipeline characteristics. We find that prediction performance is significantly better than random and that in many cases pipelines predicted to perform well provide clustering outputs similar to expert-annotated cell type labels. We identify characteristics of datasets that correlate with strong prediction performance that could guide when such prediction models may be useful. CONCLUSIONS: Supervised machine learning models have utility for recommending analysis pipelines and therefore the potential to alleviate the burden of choosing from the near-infinite number of possibilities. Different aspects of datasets influence the predictive performance of such models which will further guide users.
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 | 0.022 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".