Cellular proliferation biases clonal lineage tracing and trajectory inference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Lineage tracing and trajectory inference from single-cell RNA-sequencing data hold tremendous potential for uncovering the genetic programs driving development and disease. Single cell datasets are thought to provide an unbiased view on the diverse cellular architecture of tissues. Sampling bias, however, can skew single cell datasets away from the cellular composition they are meant to represent. RESULTS: We demonstrate a novel form of sampling bias, caused by a statistical phenomenon related to repeated sampling from a growing, heterogeneous population. Relative growth rates of cells influence the probability that they will be sampled in clones observed across multiple time points. We support our probabilistic derivations with a simulation study and an analysis of a real time-course of T-cell development. We find that this bias can impact fate probability predictions, and we explore how to develop trajectory inference methods which are robust to this bias. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Source code for the simulated datasets and to create the figures in this manuscript is freely available in python at https://github.com/rbonhamcarter/simulate-clones. A python implementation of the extension of the LineageOT method is freely available at https://github.com/rbonhamcarter/LineageOT/tree/multi-time-clones.
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 | 0.008 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".