Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 62 references

HiCat: A Semi-Supervised Approach for Cell Type Annotation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read HiCat claims that fusing CatBoost confidence with DBSCAN cluster labels in a 53-dimensional embedding lets researchers annotate known cell types and separate novel ones.

desk verdict Plausible new semi-supervised pipeline with a genuine multi-resolution feature space and a strong known-type benchmark, but the headline claim of separating multiple novel cell types is supported only by post hoc aligned confusion matrices from two datasets. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06805 v1 pith:MECXJZ2M submitted 2024-11-25 q-bio.BM cs.LG

Chang Bi , Kailun Bai , Xing Li , Xuekui Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.BMcs.LG
keywords single-cellRNAsequencingcelltypeannotationsemi-supervisedlearningnoveldiscoveryDBSCANclusteringCatBoostmulti-resolutionfeaturespaceHarmonybatchcorrection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes HiCat, a semi-supervised pipeline for single-cell RNA sequencing that combines a supervised classifier (CatBoost) with an unsupervised clustering step (DBSCAN). The central claim is that by embedding reference and query cells together in a 53-dimensional feature space built from Harmony-corrected principal components, UMAP coordinates, and DBSCAN cluster labels, the method can accurately label known cell types and, more importantly, identify and separate multiple cell types that never appeared in the reference data. The authors benchmark on 33 reference-query pairs from 10 published datasets and report that HiCat outperforms existing methods on known cell types and is especially accurate at flagging unseen cells, including rare novel populations with as few as 20 cells. The reason to care is that standard supervised annotators degrade when query data contains new cell types, while purely unsupervised clustering suffers from cluster impurity; HiCat couples the two signals so that low-confidence supervised predictions fall back to clustering labels.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 53-dimensional multi-resolution feature space, formed by concatenating Harmony's 50 principal components, UMAP's two coordinates, and DBSCAN's one cluster-membership vector for every cell in both reference and query sets. CatBoost is trained on the reference portion of this space, and for query cells it produces both a predicted cell type and a probability. The fusion rule is what carries the argument: when the predicted probability is near chance, HiCat treats the classifier as out of its depth and assigns the DBSCAN cluster label, which is how novel cell types receive labels; the confidence cutoff is chosen automatically from the largest gap in predicted probabilities across both datasets.

What would settle it

Construct a reference-query pair where the query contains a known shared cell type and a spiked-in rare population with about 30 cells, run HiCat, and check whether the spiked cells form their own DBSCAN cluster; if the spiked population is absorbed into a shared type after Harmony, the claimed rare-novel-cell detection collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

HiCat's core claim is that cell-type annotation is best done by merging supervised and unsupervised evidence across multiple resolutions of the same data. The pipeline first applies Harmony to the combined reference and query expression matrices, producing a 50-dimensional principal-component embedding in which shared cell types are aligned across batches. UMAP then compresses this to two dimensions, and DBSCAN assigns each cell a cluster label or marks it as noise. These three outputs are concatenated into a 53-dimensional feature space, on which CatBoost is trained using the reference labels. When CatBoost's predicted probability for a query cell is low, HiCat defers to the DBSCAN cluster label, which is what lets genuinely novel cell types surface as separate clusters. On 33 benchmark pairs the authors report that this procedure maintains accuracy when unseen cell types are present and, unlike the compared methods, can tell multiple unknown cell types apart.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that Harmony can strip away technical differences between the reference and query datasets while keeping intact the gene-expression signatures of cell types that exist only in the query set; if Harmony treats those query-only populations as batch variation and merges them into shared cell types, HiCat's downstream unsupervised step has nothing left to detect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For query sets that contain no unseen cell types, HiCat is reported to achieve the highest accuracy in most of the 33 benchmark pairs.
  • When one to three unseen cell types are present, HiCat keeps its median accuracy roughly stable, while the compared methods decline; it also has higher F1 for flagging cells as unseen.
  • HiCat can assign distinct labels to multiple unseen cell types; in the two pancreas examples it separated acinar, ductal, stellate, and endothelial cells with over 90% accuracy, including an endothelial population of about 20 cells.
  • Rare novel populations are not always recovered: the paper reports unstable results for 4 epsilon cells in one query set versus 8 in another, so very small novel clusters may be missed or split.
  • The decision boundary between 'trust CatBoost' and 'trust DBSCAN' is set by the largest gap in predicted probabilities, so the method has no tunable confidence parameter in its default form.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the fusion idea transfers, the same 53-dimensional construction could be applied with other supervised classifiers and other density-based clusterers; the key hypothesis is that low-confidence supervised predictions indicate out-of-distribution cells that clustering can resolve.
  • A practical implication the authors do not spell out: researchers can use HiCat's per-cluster outputs as a discovery screen, then validate candidate novel populations with curated marker genes rather than accepting the numeric labels as biological identities.
  • The reported instability on 4-cell epsilon populations suggests a natural stress test: benchmark HiCat on query sets with novel populations of 5, 10, 20, and 50 cells to quantify the minimum reliable population size.
  • Because the paper pools cross-platform and cross-species pairs, a natural next analysis is to compare HiCat's novel-type recovery separately for same-platform and cross-platform pairs, since Harmony's alignment quality is likely the deciding factor.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. HiCat is a semi-supervised pipeline for cell type annotation from single-cell RNA sequencing data. The method harmonizes reference and query data with Harmony into a 50-dimensional principal component embedding, further reduces to two dimensions with UMAP, and obtains one-dimensional cluster labels with DBSCAN; these are concatenated into a 53-dimensional feature space on which a CatBoost classifier is trained using reference cell type labels. For query cells, the CatBoost prediction is used when its confidence is high, and otherwise the DBSCAN cluster label is assigned, which is intended to label cell types absent from the reference. The authors benchmark HiCat on 33 reference-query pairs derived from 10 public datasets, reporting improved accuracy over nine existing methods for known cell types and improved F1 for detecting unseen cell types, and they illustrate the ability to separate multiple novel cell types on two pancreas query datasets.

Significance. The proposed architecture is simple and practical: multi-resolution feature construction from both reference and query data is a reasonable idea, and the supervised/unsupervised fusion is clearly described. The authors also provide code on GitHub, which supports reproducibility. If the evaluation were made rigorous, the multi-resolution feature engineering and the confidence-based fusion of CatBoost and DBSCAN would be a useful contribution to cell annotation. As it stands, however, the headline claim of distinguishing multiple novel cell types rests on post hoc aligned confusion matrices, and the comparisons to existing methods lack statistical error bars and any semi-supervised baseline. The central claims are therefore plausible but not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, 'Distinguishing Multiple Unseen Cell Types' and Figure 4] The central claim that HiCat differentiates multiple novel cell types is supported only by confusion matrices whose cluster IDs are arranged post hoc to align with true labels, as the caption states. Such an alignment can demonstrate that DBSCAN forms separable clusters, but it does not show that HiCat's fusion outperforms any alternative at assigning novel cell types. The paper should define a fixed, deterministic rule for mapping DBSCAN cluster IDs to cell type labels (or at least one that does not use query ground truth), report standard metrics such as ARI, NMI, macro-F1, or cluster purity for the novel-cell task, and compare against at least one baseline such as DBSCAN on the UMAP embedding alone or a semi-supervised method.
  2. [Section 2, Step 6] The confidence threshold rule is under-specified: 'The threshold for determining high confidence is based on the largest drop in predicted probabilities across both the reference and query datasets.' It is unclear whether the 'drop' refers to the difference between the top two predicted probabilities per cell, the gap in the probability distribution, or some other quantity, and how a single global threshold is extracted from a drop. Because this threshold determines which cells are assigned to DBSCAN/novel labels, it is load-bearing for the method's main claimed advantage. The authors should give the exact algorithm and report sensitivity of the results to the threshold.
  3. [Section 3, Figures 2 and 3] The evaluation aggregates results over 33 dataset pairs but provides no error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. The unseen-type scenarios are created by 'randomly remov[ing] cell types,' yet the number of random repetitions and seeds is not reported. Without repeated subsampling or paired statistical tests, the claims that HiCat 'consistently ranks highest' and 'clearly excels' cannot be distinguished from chance variation. The authors should add repeated random subsampling with standard errors and, for the unseen-type experiments, paired tests across the same dataset pairs.
  4. [Section 1 versus Section 3] HiCat is motivated as a semi-supervised method, and the Introduction cites CALLR, scNym, scSemiGAN, and scBERT as related semi-supervised approaches, but none of these appears in the benchmark. The Limitations section defers a broader comparison to a journal paper, yet the abstract claims HiCat 'surpasses other methods' without qualification. At minimum, the known-type and unseen-type experiments should include one or two of the most directly related semi-supervised baselines to support the comparative novelty.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References] Reference entries 1–3 contain 'ezproxy.library.uvic.ca' proxy URLs that will not resolve for most readers; these should be replaced by DOIs or canonical publisher URLs.
  2. [Introduction and keywords] There are several typos: 'pipline' in Section 1, 'spares logistic regression' in the description of CALLR, and 'Embedings' in the keywords.
  3. [Figure 4 caption and Section 3 text] The Figure 4 caption states that HiCat identified unseen types 'even when they contained fewer than 10 cells,' while the text reports that endothelial cells contained 'about 20 cells' and epsilon cells had 4 or 8 cells; please reconcile these inconsistent numbers.
  4. [Abstract] The sentence 'Except for this sentence, this document is exactly the same as the submitted version for RECOMB 2025 on October 28, 03:06 GMT' is a submission artifact and should be removed from a journal manuscript.
  5. [Section 2, Step 1] The description of Harmony as using 'its default configuration' with 'top 50 principal components' should clarify which software's defaults are meant and how the PCA is computed (for example, whether variable genes are used); this affects reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Novel-cell-type claim rests on post hoc rearrangement of DBSCAN cluster IDs to match ground truth; known-type benchmarks remain independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3, 'Distinguishing Multiple Unseen Cell Types', Figure 4 caption and surrounding text]
    "Cluster labels are arranged to align as closely as possible with the likely true labels, with the counts concentrated along the diagonal indicating correct annotations."

    The columns of the confusion matrix are arbitrary DBSCAN cluster IDs, and the paper explicitly states that these numeric IDs are arranged after the fact to maximize agreement with the ground-truth rows. The reported 'correct annotations' along the diagonal are therefore not produced by a fixed prediction rule of HiCat; they are the result of a label permutation chosen by the evaluator to fit the true labels. Consequently, the abstract's central claim that HiCat is superior 'particularly in differentiating and identifying multiple new cell types' is supported only by a cluster-to-label mapping that is fitted to the ground truth after seeing the output, not by an a priori identification.

full rationale

The known-type accuracy evaluation (Experiment 1) and the binary unseen-cell F1 evaluation (Experiment 2) use fixed ground-truth labels and standard accuracy/F1 metrics, so those parts are self-contained and not circular. The Step 6 confidence threshold is described as a heuristic ('the largest drop in predicted probabilities') rather than a fit to query labels, so I do not treat it as circular. The paper does cite the authors' own prior work for the benchmark pair construction [6] and a co-authored benchmark for choosing Harmony [50], but these self-citations are not used to derive the central predictive result and therefore do not materially raise the score. The circularity is concentrated in Experiment 3: the headline capability of differentiating and identifying multiple new cell types is demonstrated only by Figure 4, where the numeric DBSCAN cluster IDs are explicitly arranged post hoc to align with the ground-truth labels. That makes the reported 'correct annotations' an artifact of the evaluator's permutation rather than a fixed HiCat output, and no baseline or clustering metric is provided. I therefore score 6: partial circularity in the multiple-novel-cell-type evaluation, while the core supervised/unsupervised pipeline is otherwise independently benchmarked on known and binary-unseen tasks.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain of standard bioinformatics tools and several unstated assumptions. The main free parameters are the dimensionalities and clustering thresholds chosen by default, and the confidence fusion rule is under-specified. No new physical or biological entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Number of Harmony principal components = 50
    Set to Harmony's default; not varied or justified across the 10 datasets, and the central feature space dimension depends on it.
  • UMAP embedding dimension = 2
    Fixed at 2, which is a visualization choice; the 53-dimensional feature space and DBSCAN input depend on this choice.
  • DBSCAN parameters (eps, min_samples) = not specified
    The paper says defaults are used but does not state the actual values, which control the number and granularity of clusters that drive novel cell discovery.
  • CatBoost hyperparameters = defaults
    The paper states default settings are used but does not list them; the classifier's confidence distribution directly affects the fusion rule.
  • Confidence threshold rule = largest drop heuristic
    Step 6 uses 'the largest drop in predicted probabilities' to decide when to trust CatBoost, but the exact computation is not specified, making it a hand-defined, under-specified decision rule.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Harmony aligns reference and query data while preserving biological variation that is unique to the query set.
    Invoked in Section 2, Step 1. If unique query populations are removed as batch effects, novel cell types cannot be detected.
  • domain assumption UMAP's 2D embedding preserves the cluster structure that corresponds to cell types.
    Invoked in Section 2, Step 2. The DBSCAN clustering and thus the cluster membership feature depend on this.
  • domain assumption DBSCAN clusters on the UMAP embedding correspond to distinct cell types, including rare and novel ones.
    Invoked in Section 2, Step 3. The entire novel-cell labeling mechanism rests on this mapping.
  • domain assumption CatBoost's predicted probabilities are comparable across reference and query cells, and the largest-drop rule separates confident from uncertain predictions.
    Invoked in Section 2, Step 6. This is a calibration and distributional assumption that is not tested.
  • domain assumption The published cell type labels used as ground truth are accurate and directly comparable across the 33 reference-query pairs.
    Invoked throughout Section 3. All accuracy and F1 scores depend on label quality.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of HiCat: A Semi-Supervised Approach for Cell Type Annotation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MECXJZ2M

@misc{pith2026241206805,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: HiCat: A Semi-Supervised Approach for Cell Type Annotation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MECXJZ2M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06805}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce HiCat (Hybrid Cell Annotation using Transformative embeddings), a novel semi-supervised pipeline for annotating cell types from single-cell RNA sequencing data. HiCat fuses the strengths of supervised learning for known cell types with unsupervised learning to identify novel types. This hybrid approach incorporates both reference and query genomic data for feature engineering, enhancing the embedding learning process, increasing the effective sample size for unsupervised techniques, and improving the transferability of the supervised model trained on reference data when applied to query datasets. The pipeline follows six key steps: (1) removing batch effects using Harmony to generate a 50-dimensional principal component embedding; (2) applying UMAP for dimensionality reduction to two dimensions to capture crucial data patterns; (3) conducting unsupervised clustering of cells with DBSCAN, yielding a one-dimensional cluster membership vector; (4) merging the multi-resolution results of the previous steps into a 53-dimensional feature space that encompasses both reference and query data; (5) training a CatBoost model on the reference dataset to predict cell types in the query dataset; and (6) resolving inconsistencies between the supervised predictions and unsupervised cluster labels. When benchmarked on 10 publicly available genomic datasets, HiCat surpasses other methods, particularly in differentiating and identifying multiple new cell types. Its capacity to accurately classify novel cell types showcases its robustness and adaptability within intricate biological datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06805 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Workflow of HiCat. (1) Sequential Dimension Reduction: Harmony is applied to remove batch effects between the genomic matrices of the reference and query sets, reducing the data to 50 principal components (PCs). The data is then further reduced by UMAP and clustered using DBSCAN. (2) Con￾catenation of Multi-Resolution Features: The aligned PC scores, UMAP embeddings, and cluster labels are combined to create a 53-di… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Performance evaluation on data without unseen cell types. Each row depicts a pair of reference and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Annotation performance on data with unseen cell types. Each boxplot displays the performance of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Confusion matrices for cell annotation involving multiple unknown cell types are shown. The rows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top five features with the highest importance in CatBoost for Experiment 3, accounting for 70% of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/articles/s41467-021-25725-x

    Leveraging the Cell Ontology to classify unseen cell types | Nature Communications,https://www-nature-com. ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/articles/s41467-021-25725-x

    work page

  2. [2]

    Mast cells: a novel therapeutic avenue for cardiovascular diseases? | Cardiovascular Research | Oxford Academic, https://academic-oup-com.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/cardiovascres/article/120/7/681/7648818

    work page

  3. [3]

    scMAGIC: accurately annotating single cells using two rounds of reference-based classification | Nucleic Acids Research | Oxford Academic,https://academic-oup-com.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/nar/article/50/8/e43/ 6497710

    work page

  4. [4]

    Genome Biology20(1), 264 (Dec 2019)

    Alquicira-Hernandez, J., Sathe, A., Ji, H.P., Nguyen, Q., Powell, J.E.: scPred: accurate supervised method for cell-type classification from single-cell RNA-seq data. Genome Biology20(1), 264 (Dec 2019). https://doi. org/10.1186/s13059-019-1862-5, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-019-1862-5 12 Bi et al

    doi:10.1186/s13059-019-1862-5 2019

  5. [5]

    Nature Immunology 20(2), 163–172 (Feb 2019)

    Aran, D., Looney, A.P., Liu, L., Wu, E., Fong, V., Hsu, A., Chak, S., Naikawadi, R.P., Wolters, P.J., Abate, A.R., Butte, A.J., Bhattacharya, M.: Reference-based analysis of lung single-cell sequencing reveals a tran- sitional profibrotic macrophage. Nature Immunology 20(2), 163–172 (Feb 2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41590-018-0276-y, https://www.natur...

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3219242/v1, https://www

    Bai, K., Xing, L., Shao, X., Zhang, X.: PCLDA: A cell annotation tool using scRNA-seq data based on simple statistics methods (Aug 2023). https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3219242/v1, https://www. researchsquare.com/article/rs-3219242/v1, iSSN: 2693-5015

    work page doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3219242/v1 2023

  7. [7]

    Cell Systems3(4), 346–360.e4 (Oct 2016)

    Baron, M., Veres, A., Wolock, S., Faust, A., Gaujoux, R., Vetere, A., Ryu, J., Wagner, B., Shen-Orr, S., Klein, A., Melton, D., Yanai, I.: A Single-Cell Transcriptomic Map of the Human and Mouse Pancreas Reveals Inter- and Intra-cell Population Structure. Cell Systems3(4), 346–360.e4 (Oct 2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cels.2016.08.011, https://linking...

    doi:10.1016/j 2016

  8. [8]

    iScience 23(3), 100914 (Feb 2020)

    Boufea, K., Seth, S., Batada, N.N.: scID Uses Discriminant Analysis to Identify Transcriptionally Equivalent Cell Types across Single-Cell RNA-Seq Data with Batch Effect. iScience 23(3), 100914 (Feb 2020). https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2020.100914, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7063229/

    work page arXiv 2020

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Machine Learning 45(1), 5–32 (Oct 2001)

    Breiman, L.: Random Forests. Machine Learning 45(1), 5–32 (Oct 2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A: 1010933404324, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324

    2001 doi

  2. [10]

    Frontiers in Immunology13, 885267 (Apr 2022).https://doi.org/10.3389/ fimmu.2022.885267, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9096838/

    Bridges,K.,Miller-Jensen,K.:MappingandValidationofscRNA-Seq-DerivedCell-CellCommunicationNetworks in the Tumor Microenvironment. Frontiers in Immunology13, 885267 (Apr 2022).https://doi.org/10.3389/ fimmu.2022.885267, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9096838/

    2022

  3. [11]

    Nature Neuroscience20(3), 484–496 (Mar 2017).https://doi

    Campbell, J.N., Macosko, E.Z., Fenselau, H., Pers, T.H., Lyubetskaya, A., Tenen, D., Goldman, M., Verstegen, A.M.J., Resch, J.M., McCarroll, S.A., Rosen, E.D., Lowell, B.B., Tsai, L.T.: A molecular census of arcuate hypothalamus and median eminence cell types. Nature Neuroscie...

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining

    Chen, T., Guestrin, C.: XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. pp. 785–794 (Aug 2016).https://doi.org/ 10.1145/2939672.2939785, http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.02754, arXiv:160...

    2016

  5. [13]

    Nature Machine Intelligence4(2), 116–126 (Feb 2022)

    Chen, X., Chen, S., Song, S., Gao, Z., Hou, L., Zhang, X., Lv, H., Jiang, R.: Cell type annotation of single-cell chromatin accessibility data via supervised Bayesian embedding. Nature Machine Intelligence4(2), 116–126 (Feb 2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-021-00432-w, ht...

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    IEEE Transactions on Information Theory13(1), 21–27 (Jan 1967)

    Cover, T., Hart, P.: Nearest neighbor pattern classification. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory13(1), 21–27 (Jan 1967). https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.1967.1053964, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/ 1053964, conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Information Theory

    1967

  7. [15]

    Blood121(24), 4930–4937 (Jun 2013).https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2013-02-486217, https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2013-02-486217

    De Filippo, K., Dudeck, A., Hasenberg, M., Nye, E., van Rooijen, N., Hartmann, K., Gunzer, M., Roers, A., Hogg, N.:MastcellandmacrophagechemokinesCXCL1/CXCL2controltheearlystageofneutrophilrecruitmentduring tissue inflammation. Blood121(24), 4930–4937 (Jun 2013).https://doi.or...

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    Nucleic Acids Research47(16), e95 (Sep 2019)

    de Kanter, J.K., Lijnzaad, P., Candelli, T., Margaritis, T., Holstege, F.C.P.: CHETAH: a selective, hierarchical cell type identification method for single-cell RNA sequencing. Nucleic Acids Research47(16), e95 (Sep 2019). https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkz543, https://doi.org/10...

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    Nature Biotechnology38(6), 737–746 (Jun 2020).https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41587-020-0465-8, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-020-0465-8, publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    Ding, J., Adiconis, X., Simmons, S.K., Kowalczyk, M.S., Hession, C.C., Marjanovic, N.D., Hughes, T.K., Wadsworth, M.H., Burks, T., Nguyen, L.T., Kwon, J.Y.H., Barak, B., Ge, W., Kedaigle, A.J., Carroll, S., Li, S., Hacohen, N., Rozenblatt-Rosen, O., Shalek, A.K., Villani, A.C....

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    Dorogush, A.V., Ershov, V., Gulin, A.: CatBoost: gradient boosting with categorical features support (Oct 2018), https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.11363v1

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    BMC Bioinformatics21(1), 191 (May 2020)

    Ekiz, H.A., Conley, C.J., Stephens, W.Z., O’Connell, R.M.: CIPR: a web-based R/shiny app and R package to annotate cell clusters in single cell RNA sequencing experiments. BMC Bioinformatics21(1), 191 (May 2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-020-3538-2, https://doi.org/10.11...

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining

    Ester, M., Kriegel, H.P., Sander, J., Xu, X.: A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. pp. 226–231. KDD’96, AAAI Press, Portland, Ore...

    1996

  13. [21]

    F1000Research 9, 223 (Jul 2020)

    Fu, R., Gillen, A.E., Sheridan, R.M., Tian, C., Daya, M., Hao, Y., Hesselberth, J.R., Riemondy, K.A.: clus- tifyr: an R package for automated single-cell RNA sequencing cluster classification. F1000Research 9, 223 (Jul 2020). https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.22969.2, htt...

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    Ganin, Y., Ustinova, E., Ajakan, H., Germain, P., Larochelle, H., Laviolette, F., Marchand, M., Lempitsky, V.: Domain-Adversarial Training of Neural Networks (May 2016).https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1505.07818, http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.07818, arXiv:1505.07818 [cs, stat]

    2016 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems

    Goodfellow, I., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., Courville, A., Bengio, Y.: Generative Adversarial Nets. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems. vol. 27. Curran Associates, Inc. (2014), https://papers.nips.cc/paper_files/paper...

    2014

  16. [24]

    https://doi

    Haghverdi, L., Lun, A.T.L., Morgan, M.D., Marioni, J.C.: Batch effects in single-cell RNA-sequencing data are correctedbymatchingmutualnearestneighbors.NatureBiotechnology 36(5),421–427(May2018). https://doi. org/10.1038/nbt.4091, https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.4091, publ...

    doi

  17. [25]

    Nature Biotechnology 42(2), 293–304 (Feb 2024)

    Hao, Y., Stuart, T., Kowalski, M.H., Choudhary, S., Hoffman, P., Hartman, A., Srivastava, A., Molla, G., Madad, S., Fernandez-Granda, C., Satija, R.: Dictionary learning for integrative, multimodal and scalable single-cell analysis. Nature Biotechnology 42(2), 293–304 (Feb 202...

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    Bioinformatics35(22), 4688–4695 (Nov 2019).https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/ btz292, https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btz292

    Hou, R., Denisenko, E., Forrest, A.R.R.: scMatch: a single-cell gene expression profile annotation tool using reference datasets. Bioinformatics35(22), 4688–4695 (Nov 2019).https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/ btz292, https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btz292

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    Bioinformatics Advances3(1), vbad030 (Jan 2023).https://doi.org/10

    Ji, X., Tsao, D., Bai, K., Tsao, M., Xing, L., Zhang, X.: scAnnotate: an automated cell-type annotation tool for single-cell RNA-sequencing data. Bioinformatics Advances3(1), vbad030 (Jan 2023).https://doi.org/10. 1093/bioadv/vbad030, https://doi.org/10.1093/bioadv/vbad030

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    Clinical and Translational Medicine12(3), e694 (Mar 2022).https://doi.org/10.1002/ctm2

    Jovic, D., Liang, X., Zeng, H., Lin, L., Xu, F., Luo, Y.: Single-cell RNA sequencing technologies and applications: A brief overview. Clinical and Translational Medicine12(3), e694 (Mar 2022).https://doi.org/10.1002/ctm2. 694, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8964935/

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.04.132324, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06

    Kimmel, J.C., Kelley, D.R.: scNym: Semi-supervised adversarial neural networks for single cell classification (Aug 2020). https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.04.132324, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06. 04.132324v3, pages: 2020.06.04.132324 Section: New Results

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    Nature Meth- ods 15(5), 359–362 (May 2018).https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4644, https://www.nature.com/articles/ nmeth.4644, number: 5 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    Kiselev, V.Y., Yiu, A., Hemberg, M.: scmap: projection of single-cell RNA-seq data across data sets. Nature Meth- ods 15(5), 359–362 (May 2018).https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4644, https://www.nature.com/articles/ nmeth.4644, number: 5 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    Klein, A., Falkner, S., Bartels, S., Hennig, P., Hutter, F.: Fast Bayesian hyperparameter optimization on large datasets.ElectronicJournalofStatistics 11(2),4945–4968(Jan2017). https://doi.org/10.1214/17-EJS1335SI, https://projecteuclid.org/journals/electronic-journal-of-stati...

    doi

  24. [32]

    Korsunsky, I., Millard, N., Fan, J., Slowikowski, K., Zhang, F., Wei, K., Baglaenko, Y., Brenner, M., Loh, P.r., Raychaudhuri, S.: Fast, sensitive and accurate integration of single-cell data with Harmony. Nature Meth- ods 16(12), 1289–1296 (Dec 2019).https://doi.org/10.1038/s...

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    Genome Research27(2), 208–222 (Feb 2017).https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.212720

    Lawlor, N., George, J., Bolisetty, M., Kursawe, R., Sun, L., Sivakamasundari, V., Kycia, I., Robson, P., Stitzel, M.L.: Single-cell transcriptomes identify human islet cell signatures and reveal cell-type-specific expression changes in type 2 diabetes. Genome Research27(2), 20...

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    PLOS ONE 13(10),e0205499(Oct2018)

    Lieberman, Y., Rokach, L., Shay, T.: CaSTLe – Classification of single cells by transfer learning: Harnessing the power of publicly available single cell RNA sequencing experiments to annotate new experiments. PLOS ONE 13(10),e0205499(Oct2018). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal....

    doi

  27. [35]

    Molecular Systems Biology16(6), e9389 (Jun 2020).https://doi.org/10.15252/msb.20199389, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC7306901/

    Lin, Y., Cao, Y., Kim, H.J., Salim, A., Speed, T.P., Lin, D.M., Yang, P., Yang, J.Y.H.: scClassify: sample size esti- mation and multiscale classification of cells using single and multiple reference. Molecular Systems Biology16(6), e9389 (Jun 2020).https://doi.org/10.15252/ms...

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    2023 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformat- ics and Biomedicine (BIBM) pp

    Liu, Y., Li, T., Wang, Z., Zhu, G., Zhang, Y., Zou, Q.: Exploring Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning of a Large-Scale Pre-Trained Model for scRNA-seq Cell Type Annotation. 2023 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformat- ics and Biomedicine (BIBM) pp. 580–585 (Dec 2023). https:...

    2023

  29. [37]

    Bioinfor- matics 36(2), 533–538 (Jan 2020).https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btz592, https://doi.org/10

    Ma, F., Pellegrini, M.: ACTINN: automated identification of cell types in single cell RNA sequencing. Bioinfor- matics 36(2), 533–538 (Jan 2020).https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btz592, https://doi.org/10. 1093/bioinformatics/btz592 14 Bi et al

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1802.03426, http://arxiv.org/abs/1802.03426, arXiv:1802.03426

    McInnes, L., Healy, J., Melville, J.: UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reduction (Sep 2020). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1802.03426, http://arxiv.org/abs/1802.03426, arXiv:1802.03426

    2020 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    Cell Systems 3(4), 385–394.e3 (Oct 2016).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cels.2016.09.002, https://linkinghub.elsevier

    Muraro, M., Dharmadhikari, G., Grün, D., Groen, N., Dielen, T., Jansen, E., van Gurp, L., Engelse, M., Carlotti, F., de Koning, E., van Oudenaarden, A.: A Single-Cell Transcriptome Atlas of the Human Pancreas. Cell Systems 3(4), 385–394.e3 (Oct 2016).https://doi.org/10.1016/j....

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal19, 961–969 (Jan 2021).https://doi.org/10

    Pasquini, G., Rojo Arias, J.E., Schäfer, P., Busskamp, V.: Automated methods for cell type annotation on scRNA- seq data. Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal19, 961–969 (Jan 2021).https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.csbj.2021.01.015, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...

    2021

  33. [41]

    Nature Methods 16(10), 983–986 (Oct 2019)

    Pliner, H.A., Shendure, J., Trapnell, C.: Supervised classification enables rapid annotation of cell atlases. Nature Methods 16(10), 983–986 (Oct 2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0535-3, https://www.nature. com/articles/s41592-019-0535-3, publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    Cancer Research 84(5_Supplement_2), A087 (Mar 2024)

    Sallese, M.R., Riso, P.L., Villa, C.E., Testa, G.: Abstract A087: An ovarian cancer scRNA-seq at- las to dissect tumor-host interactions underlying metastatization and chemoresistance. Cancer Research 84(5_Supplement_2), A087 (Mar 2024). https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.OVARI...

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    Saunders, C., Mo, W.J.S., L, S.B.B., Smola, A.: Support Vector Machine Reference Manual (1998), https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Support-Vector-Machine-Reference-Manual-Saunders-Mo/ d36f7543109a8c859d423ddb98bf6d2bd4e13d4d

    1998

  36. [44]

    Cell Metabolism24(4), 593–607 (Oct 2016)

    Segerstolpe, A., Palasantza, A., Eliasson, P., Andersson, E.M., Andréasson, A.C., Sun, X., Picelli, S., Sabirsh, A., Clausen, M., Bjursell, M.K., Smith, D., Kasper, M., Ämmälä, C., Sandberg, R.: Single-Cell Transcrip- tome Profiling of Human Pancreatic Islets in Health and Typ...

    2016 doi

  37. [45]

    Nucleic Acids Research 49(21), e122 (Dec 2021)

    Shao, X., Yang, H., Zhuang, X., Liao, J., Yang, P., Cheng, J., Lu, X., Chen, H., Fan, X.: scDeepSort: a pre-trained cell-type annotation method for single-cell transcriptomics using deep learning with a weighted graph neural network. Nucleic Acids Research 49(21), e122 (Dec 20...

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    Cell 177(7), 1888–1902.e21 (Jun 2019)

    Stuart, T., Butler, A., Hoffman, P., Hafemeister, C., Papalexi, E., Mauck, W.M., Hao, Y., Stoeckius, M., Smibert, P., Satija, R.: Comprehensive Integration of Single-Cell Data. Cell 177(7), 1888–1902.e21 (Jun 2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.05.031, https://www.scien...

    1902 doi

  39. [47]

    Nature 562(7727), 367–372 (Oct 2018).https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0590-4

    Tabula Muris Consortium, Overall coordination, Logistical coordination, Organ collection and processing, Library preparation and sequencing, Computational data analysis, Cell type annotation, Writing group, Supplemental text writing group, Principal investigators: Single-cell ...

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    Cell Systems9(2), 207–213.e2 (Aug 2019).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cels.2019.06.004, https://www.cell.com/cell-systems/abstract/S2405-4712(19)30199-1, publisher: Elsevier

    Tan, Y., Cahan, P.: SingleCellNet: A Computational Tool to Classify Single Cell RNA-Seq Data Across Platforms and Across Species. Cell Systems9(2), 207–213.e2 (Aug 2019).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cels.2019.06.004, https://www.cell.com/cell-systems/abstract/S2405-4712(19)30199-...

    2019 doi

  41. [49]

    Nature Neuroscience19(2), 335–346 (Feb 2016).https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4216

    Tasic, B., Menon, V., Nguyen, T.N., Kim, T.K., Jarsky, T., Yao, Z., Levi, B., Gray, L.T., Sorensen, S.A., Dol- beare, T., Bertagnolli, D., Goldy, J., Shapovalova, N., Parry, S., Lee, C., Smith, K., Bernard, A., Madisen, L., Sunkin, S.M., Hawrylycz, M., Koch, C., Zeng, H.: Adul...

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

    Genome Biology21(1), 12 (Jan 2020)

    Tran, H.T.N., Ang, K.S., Chevrier, M., Zhang, X., Lee, N.Y.S., Goh, M., Chen, J.: A benchmark of batch- effect correction methods for single-cell RNA sequencing data. Genome Biology21(1), 12 (Jan 2020). https: //doi.org/10.1186/s13059-019-1850-9, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059...

    2020 doi

  43. [51]

    https://doi.org/10.1101/456129, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/456129v1, pages: 456129 Section: New Results

    Wagner,F.,Yanai,I.:Moana:Arobustandscalablecelltypeclassificationframeworkforsingle-cellRNA-Seqdata (Oct 2018). https://doi.org/10.1101/456129, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/456129v1, pages: 456129 Section: New Results

    2018 doi

  44. [52]

    Diabetes 65(10), 3028–3038 (Oct 2016)

    Wang, Y.J., Schug, J., Won, K.J., Liu, C., Naji, A., Avrahami, D., Golson, M.L., Kaestner, K.H.: Single-Cell Transcriptomics of the Human Endocrine Pancreas. Diabetes 65(10), 3028–3038 (Oct 2016). https://doi.org/10.2337/db16-0405, https://diabetesjournals.org/diabetes/article...

    2016 doi

  45. [53]

    Bioinformatics 37(Suppl 1), i51–i58 (Jul 2021)

    Wei, Z., Zhang, S.: CALLR: a semi-supervised cell-type annotation method for single-cell RNA sequencing data. Bioinformatics 37(Suppl 1), i51–i58 (Jul 2021). https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btab286, https: //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8686678/

    2021 doi

  46. [54]

    HiCat: A Semi-supervised Cell Annotation Pipeline 15 Nucleic Acids Research47(8), e48 (May 2019)

    Xie, P., Gao, M., Wang, C., Zhang, J., Noel, P., Yang, C., Von Hoff, D., Han, H., Zhang, M.Q., Lin, W.: SuperCT: a supervised-learning framework for enhanced characterization of single-cell transcriptomic profiles. HiCat: A Semi-supervised Cell Annotation Pipeline 15 Nucleic A...

    2019 doi

  47. [55]

    Cell Metabolism24(4), 608–615 (Oct 2016)

    Xin, Y., Kim, J., Okamoto, H., Ni, M., Wei, Y., Adler, C., Murphy, A., Yancopoulos, G., Lin, C., Gromada, J.: RNA Sequencing of Single Human Islet Cells Reveals Type 2 Diabetes Genes. Cell Metabolism24(4), 608–615 (Oct 2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2016.08.018, https:/...

    2016 doi

  48. [56]

    Molecular Systems Biology 17(1), e9620 (Jan 2021)

    Xu, C., Lopez, R., Mehlman, E., Regier, J., Jordan, M.I., Yosef, N.: Probabilistic harmonization and annotation of single-cell transcriptomics data with deep generative models. Molecular Systems Biology 17(1), e9620 (Jan 2021). https://doi.org/10.15252/msb.20209620, https://ww...

    2021 doi

  49. [57]

    Bioinformatics38(22), 5042–5048 (Nov 2022).https://doi

    Xu, Z., Luo, J., Xiong, Z.: scSemiGAN: a single-cell semi-supervised annotation and dimensionality reduction framework based on generative adversarial network. Bioinformatics38(22), 5042–5048 (Nov 2022).https://doi. org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btac652, https://doi.org/10.1093/b...

    2022 doi

  50. [58]

    Yang, F., Wang, W., Wang, F., Fang, Y., Tang, D., Huang, J., Lu, H., Yao, J.: scBERT as a large-scale pretrained deep language model for cell type annotation of single-cell RNA-seq data. Nature Machine Intelli- gence 4(10), 852–866 (Oct 2022).https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-022...

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    Briefings in Bioinformatics22(3), bbaa097 (Jun 2020)

    Yang, Y., Li, G., Qian, H., Wilhelmsen, K.C., Shen, Y., Li, Y.: SMNN: batch effect correction for single-cell RNA-seq data via supervised mutual nearest neighbor detection. Briefings in Bioinformatics22(3), bbaa097 (Jun 2020). https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbaa097, https://www.n...

    2020 doi

  52. [60]

    Cell Discovery 5(1), 1–4 (Sep 2019)

    Zhang, F., Wu, Y., Tian, W.: A novel approach to remove the batch effect of single-cell data. Cell Discovery 5(1), 1–4 (Sep 2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41421-019-0114-x, https://www.nature.com/articles/ s41421-019-0114-x, publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2019 doi

  53. [61]

    Frontiers in Immunology14, 1189520 (May 2023).https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2023.1189520, https:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10225553/

    Zhang, P., Liu, J., Pei, S., Wu, D., Xie, J., Liu, J., Li, J.: Mast cell marker gene signature: prognosis and immunotherapy response prediction in lung adenocarcinoma through integrated scRNA-seq and bulk RNA-seq. Frontiers in Immunology14, 1189520 (May 2023).https://doi.org/1...

    2023

  54. [62]

    Genes 10(7), 531 (Jul 2019)

    Zhang, Z., Luo, D., Zhong, X., Choi, J.H., Ma, Y., Wang, S., Mahrt, E., Guo, W., Stawiski, E.W., Modrusan, Z., Seshagiri, S., Kapur, P., Hon, G.C., Brugarolas, J., Wang, T.: SCINA: A Semi-Supervised Subtyping Algorithm of Single Cells and Bulk Samples. Genes 10(7), 531 (Jul 20...

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.