From Noise to Models to Numbers: Evaluating Negative Binomial Models and Parameter Estimations in Single-Cell RNA-seq
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Negative Binomial (NB) distribution is widely used to approximate transcript count distributions in single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) data, yet the reason for its ubiquity is not fully understood. Here, we employ a computationally efficient model selection technique to map the relationship between the best-fit models – Beta-Poisson (Telegraph), NB, and Poisson – and the kinetic parameters that govern gene expression stochasticity. Our findings reveal that the NB distribution closely approximates simulated data (incorporating both biological and technical noise) within an intermediate range of the sum of the gene activation and inactivation rates normalized by the mRNA degradation rate. This range expands with decreasing mean expression, increasing technical noise, and larger sample sizes. The results imply that: (i) good NB fits occur in diverse parameter regimes without exclusively indicating transcriptional bursting; (ii) for small sample sizes, biological noise predominantly shapes the NB profile even when technical noise is present; (iii) under steady-state conditions, gene-specific parameters (burst size and frequency) estimated in regions where the NB model fits well, typically show large relative errors, even after corrections for technical noise, and (iv) gene ranking by burst frequency remains reliably accurate, suggesting that burst parameters are most informative in a relative sense. Finally, applying technical-noise–corrected model fitting to scRNA-seq data confirms that a substantial fraction of mammalian genes fall within these NB-fitting regimes, despite lacking transcriptional bursting.
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 | 0.012 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".