scReader: Prompting Large Language Models to Interpret scRNA-seq Data

Cong Li; Meng Xiao; Qingqing Long; Yuanchun Zhou

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 41 references

scReader: Prompting Large Language Models to Interpret scRNA-seq Data

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that sending expression-weighted gene embeddings through a frozen Llama-13b with an instruction prompt substantially improves cell-type annotation compared with the GenePT baseline on human and mouse data.

desk verdict Plausible hybrid LLM+gene-embedding idea, but the reported win over GenePT is not established because the baseline is a nonstandard reimplementation and the method description contradicts itself. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18156 v1 pith:YR5LHCAS submitted 2024-12-24 q-bio.GN cs.AIcs.CL

Cong Li , Qingqing Long , Yuanchun Zhou , Meng Xiao This is my paper · ORCID

classification q-bio.GNcs.AIcs.CL

keywords largelanguagemodelssingle-cellRNAsequencingcelltypeannotationgeneembeddingpromptlearningcross-speciesanalysisfoundationmodelexpression

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

This paper proposes a hybrid pipeline, SCREADER, that builds a cell representation from GPT-3.5-generated gene embeddings plus expression rankings, then passes it through a frozen Llama-13b with an instruction prompt. The central claim is that adding this frozen LLM reader yields substantially higher accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 on cell-type annotation than using the same gene embeddings without the LLM, as the paper's comparison against GenePT shows. A sympathetic reader would care because, if true, general-purpose language models could supply biological knowledge that improves single-cell interpretation across species—including species with scarce training data—without training a new foundation model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the pairing of (1) gene-level embeddings produced by GPT-3.5 from functional gene descriptions and (2) a frozen Llama-13b that receives a concatenation of a text instruction, the projected cell-embedding sequence, and a class token, with only an MLP projection and a classification head trainable. The paper calls the overall pipeline 'LLM as Single-Cell RNA Data Reader' (SCREADER). It is the frozen LLM's contextual aggregation—what the paper terms the model's 'common knowledge'—that is claimed to supply the extra supervisory signal; no gene or cell foundation model is trained.

What would settle it

Re-run the same train/test splits using the original GenePT recipe—averaging the 1536-dimensional GPT embeddings without the up-projection MLP—and check whether SCREADER's accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 margins persist; if the margins collapse or reverse, the gain is an artifact of the modified baseline.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

SCREADER's central discovery is that a frozen Llama-13b, prompted with a task instruction and a class token, can act as an interpreter that turns a sequence of expression-weighted gene embeddings into a cell representation that separates cell types far more cleanly than the embeddings alone. The gene embeddings come from GPT-3.5 applied to functional descriptions from a public gene database; each cell is encoded by its top 2048 differentially expressed genes, with each gene's embedding scaled by its expression level. After an MLP projects the sequence to Llama's input size, the frozen LLM aggregates it, and a trainable classification head reads out the cell type from the class token. The paper reports that on HUMAN-10k (61 cell types) and MOUSE-13k (37 cell types), SCREADER outperforms its GenePT comparison across accuracy, precision, recall, and F1, with a larger margin on human data, which have a higher fraction of genes with gene-description coverage.

Load-bearing premise

The reported advantage rests on comparing SCREADER to a GenePT baseline that the paper reimplements with an added MLP and an averaging step, so if that reimplementation is not faithful to the original GenePT, the large gap might reflect a weakened baseline rather than the LLM's understanding.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Using the same initial gene embeddings, adding a frozen Llama-13b raises accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 substantially on both HUMAN-10k and MOUSE-13k cell-type annotation.
Because only the projection MLP and classification head are trained, the pipeline avoids per-species foundation-model pretraining, which the paper argues could make it practical for species with limited single-cell data.
The improvement is larger on the human dataset (97.5% of genes with gene descriptions) than on the mouse dataset (83.6%), suggesting the method's benefit scales with coverage of textual gene knowledge.
The paper concludes that the same reader-style prompting could extend to multi-omics integration and rare-cell-type identification for precision medicine and developmental biology.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper leaves open whether the gain comes from the LLM's semantic knowledge or simply from the extra capacity of the learned projection layers; a perturbation test that shuffles gene descriptions before embedding would separate these two accounts.
Because the methods section describes a positional-encoding variant while the experiments section describes multiplying embeddings by expression values, testing both encoding schemes against a common GenePT baseline would clarify which cell-embedding construction is responsible for the reported gains.
The approach's reliance on textual gene summaries suggests a cheap extension: for genes missing database entries (about 16% of mouse genes), generating descriptions with a conversational LLM, as the paper already does for missing entries, could be applied systematically and evaluated for its effect on performance.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Tom,

The core idea here—initialize gene vectors from GPT embeddings of NCBI text, then pass a ranked gene sequence through a frozen Llama-13b with a trainable CLS head—is sensible, and the cross-species framing is fine. Credit where it's due: using a frozen LLM as an aggregator over text-derived gene embeddings is a cheap, plausible hybrid, and the training setup (10-fold split, fixed epochs, LR, batch size) is concrete.

The problems are in the evaluation and the write-up. The GenePT baseline in Section V is not GenePT. They remove Llama from their own pipeline but keep the up-projection MLP (1536 to 4096) and then average the projected gene embeddings. Published GenePT averages the 1536-d GPT embeddings directly and then classifies. Averaging after a learnable nonlinear projection is a different model; it can be weaker or stronger, but it isn't the published method. The paper never reports the actual GenePT numbers, so the large accuracy gains in Figure 2 cannot be attributed to Llama's "common knowledge" as claimed in Section VI.

The method description also contradicts itself. Section IV says "training is unnecessary," then trains the projection MLP, classification head, and CLS embedding. Section IV projects to 5120 dimensions; Section V says 4096. Section IV defines a ranked top-2048 sequence with positional encodings; Section V multiplies gene embeddings by expression values and stacks them. And Figure 1 and Section IV refer to "scInterpreter" instead of SCREADER, with no citation. That last point needs to be checked—if SCREADER is a renamed version of prior work by these authors, that's a disclosure problem. As written, the internal inconsistencies make it impossible to confirm what was actually evaluated.

No error bars, no ablations, one baseline, two datasets. The confusion matrices and UMAPs are presented descriptively, but without quantitative support they don't carry the claim.

My recommendation: this is a plausible idea, but the evaluation doesn't support the headline result. I would not send it to peer review in its current form. If the authors fix the baseline, add error bars and ablations, and clarify the scInterpreter issue, it might deserve a round of refereeing. For now, desk reject with an invitation to resubmit after major revision.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes SCREADER, a pipeline that embeds NCBI gene descriptions with GPT-3.5, builds cell representations from expression-ranked genes, projects them with an MLP, and passes them through a frozen Llama-13b with an instruction prompt. The authors evaluate cell-type annotation on two in-house datasets (HUMAN-10k and MOUSE-13k) against a baseline they call GenePT, reporting large gains in accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 (Figure 2) as well as UMAP visualizations. The core claim is that the frozen LLM contributes biological 'common knowledge' that improves cell representation.

Significance. If the reported results were established, the idea of using a frozen general-purpose LLM as an interpreter over text-derived gene embeddings would be a useful contribution to cross-species scRNA-seq analysis, and the paper is commendable for stating a clear problem and releasing code. However, the central empirical claim is currently not established: the GenePT baseline as described is not the published method, the method section contains internal contradictions about the input representation and training, and no variance or ablation information is reported. The contribution is therefore promising in principle but requires a full re-evaluation before it can be assessed.

major comments (3)

[Section V, Training Workflow; Figure 2] The baseline described as GenePT is not the method of Chen and Zou (Ref. [16]). The manuscript's baseline first passes cell-initialized embeddings through a trainable five-layer MLP that up-projects them to 4096 dimensions, then averages the projected gene embeddings and applies a classification MLP. Published GenePT averages gene-level GPT-3.5 embeddings, with expression weighting, and then applies a classifier; it does not insert a learned nonlinear projection before the averaging operation. Averaging after a trained nonlinear transformation changes the feature geometry and adds considerable trainable capacity, so the large performance gaps in Figure 2 cannot be attributed to Llama-13b's 'common knowledge' as claimed in Section VI. A faithful implementation of GenePT must be compared before the headline result is supported.
[Section IV (Cell-level Representation, Eq. (2)) vs. Section V (Cell Embedding Initialization, Training Workflow)] The method description is internally contradictory. Section IV defines the cell representation as a sequence of top-2048 gene embeddings concatenated with positional encodings and states that 'training is unnecessary,' while Section V instead says that gene embeddings are multiplied by their expression values and stacked, and the optimization objective in Section IV trains the projection MLP, the classification head, and the class-token embedding. In addition, Section IV says the projection is to 5120 dimensions to match Llama-13b, whereas Section V says the input is projected to 4096 dimensions. These contradictions leave the exact pipeline ambiguous and must be resolved for the experiments to be reproducible.
[Section VI, Figure 2] No variance, sample-size, or ablation information is provided for the main quantitative claim. Figure 2 reports single bars for accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 without error bars or repeated-run statistics, and no ablation removes the Llama component while keeping the input representation identical. Consequently, even setting aside the baseline issue, the claim of a 'huge margin' over GenePT is not statistically supported.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and Section I] The abstract uses 'interoperability' where 'interpretability' is presumably intended, and Section I contains the typo 'high-throughout data' instead of 'high-throughput data.'
[Section IV and Figure 1 caption] The caption and text refer to 'scInterpreter' rather than 'SCREADER,' which appears to be leftover from another paper and should be corrected.
[Section V, Dataset Preparation and Training Workflow] The phrase '10-fold validation split ratio' is unclear; the authors should state explicitly whether 10-fold cross-validation or a single split was used, and the sentence fragment 'sFinally' should be fixed.
[Section V, Dataset Preparation] No accession numbers or preprocessing scripts are provided for HUMAN-10k and MOUSE-13k, and the golden labels are generated by the authors' own Seurat clustering and marker-gene annotation, so the datasets and labels are not independently verifiable.
[Figures 3 and 4] The confusion matrices have no axis labels or numeric values, which makes the discussion of specific cell types such as Parietal Endoderm difficult to verify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation is present: SCREADER is an empirical pipeline whose inputs do not encode the reported accuracy results.

full rationale

The central claim is an empirical comparison rather than a derivation. Gene-level embeddings are fixed outputs of GPT-3.5 applied to NCBI gene descriptions, and cell-level inputs are built from ranked expression values; neither of these inputs contains the cell-type labels or the reported accuracy numbers. The frozen Llama-13b, projection MLP, and classification head are trained against held-out labels using cross-entropy, and the GenePT baseline is trained on the same splits with the same initial gene embeddings. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no load-bearing self-citation is used; the self-citations in references [5,6,10,11,13,15,25] concern unrelated data-mining and knowledge-graph papers and do not justify SCREADER's architecture or results. The manuscript's internal inconsistency between the rank-based positional-encoding construction in Section IV and the expression-multiplied stacked construction in Section V is a reproducibility defect, not a circular reduction. The main caveat noted by the skeptic, that the reported GenePT baseline averages gene embeddings after a learned up-projection to 4096 dimensions rather than averaging the original 1536-dimensional GPT embeddings, is a comparison-fairness and correctness risk, but it does not make the claimed improvement equivalent to the method's own inputs. Therefore the paper is self-contained with respect to circularity, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of text embeddings of gene descriptions as biological representations, on the ability of a frozen LLM to aggregate ordered gene embeddings, and on the correctness of the manually annotated cell-type labels. No independent evidence is provided for these assumptions, and the paper's internal contradictions (training-free claim vs actual training) further weaken the foundation.

free parameters (4)

top_k_genes = 2048
The number of top expressed genes used per cell to build the cell representation; chosen by hand without sensitivity analysis.
mlp_hidden_dim = 4096 (Section V) vs 5120 (Section IV)
The projection dimension to match Llama-13b input; the paper inconsistently states 4096 and 5120.
learning_rate = 5e-5
Optimizer learning rate, chosen without reported tuning.
num_epochs = 10
Training epochs, chosen without reported tuning.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption NCBI gene description text is a sufficient and accurate representation of gene function for cell-type discrimination.
The entire gene embedding initialization relies on this (Section IV, Gene-level Embedding Initialization).
domain assumption The text-embedding-ada-002 model maps gene descriptions into a vector space where biological similarity is captured.
The method uses these embeddings without validation (Equation 1).
ad hoc to paper A frozen Llama-13b can extract cell-type-relevant information from a sequence of gene embeddings plus a short instruction.
The central architectural bet; no ablation or analysis supports it (Section IV, LLMs as the Gene Interpreter).
domain assumption The golden cell-type labels are correct.
Labels are derived from Seurat clustering and manual marker-gene annotation (Section V), a noisy process.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of scReader: Prompting Large Language Models to Interpret scRNA-seq Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YR5LHCAS

@misc{pith2026241218156,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: scReader: Prompting Large Language Models to Interpret scRNA-seq Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YR5LHCAS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18156}
}

read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable advancements, primarily due to their capabilities in modeling the hidden relationships within text sequences. This innovation presents a unique opportunity in the field of life sciences, where vast collections of single-cell omics data from multiple species provide a foundation for training foundational models. However, the challenge lies in the disparity of data scales across different species, hindering the development of a comprehensive model for interpreting genetic data across diverse organisms. In this study, we propose an innovative hybrid approach that integrates the general knowledge capabilities of LLMs with domain-specific representation models for single-cell omics data interpretation. We begin by focusing on genes as the fundamental unit of representation. Gene representations are initialized using functional descriptions, leveraging the strengths of mature language models such as LLaMA-2. By inputting single-cell gene-level expression data with prompts, we effectively model cellular representations based on the differential expression levels of genes across various species and cell types. In the experiments, we constructed developmental cells from humans and mice, specifically targeting cells that are challenging to annotate. We evaluated our methodology through basic tasks such as cell annotation and visualization analysis. The results demonstrate the efficacy of our approach compared to other methods using LLMs, highlighting significant improvements in accuracy and interoperability. Our hybrid approach enhances the representation of single-cell data and offers a robust framework for future research in cross-species genetic analysis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.18156 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The illustration of SCREADER. (a) Details of generating gene embedding via NCBI gene description. (b) The pipeline of scInterpreter. The model will first embed each input from the cell and downstream task-specific instruction. Then, the cell embedding and instruction embedding will pass through the LLMs. After aggregating the knowledge and structural information of the given cell by LLMs, the model ReadOut the repre… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The performance comparison between SCREADER and GenePT of single-cell data and various downstream tasks, allowing a fair comparison across different experimental settings. In our comparative analysis, we evaluated both GenePT and our proposed method on the same datasets, using identical train-test splits and evaluation metrics. This ensures a fair and rigorous comparison of the two approaches. VI. EXPERIMENTS In thi… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The confusion matrix of each method on MOUSE-13k. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The confusion matrix of each method on HUMAN-10k. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The UMAP illustration of the cell representation from initialization, GenePT, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The UMAP illustration of the cell representation from initialization, GenePT, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

[16]

Genept: A simple but hard-to-beat foundation model for genes and cells built from chatgpt,

Y . T. Chen and J. Zou, “Genept: A simple but hard-to-beat foundation model for genes and cells built from chatgpt,” bioRxiv, pp. 2023–10, 2023

work page 2023
[1]

Gpt-4 technical report,

J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat et al. , “Gpt-4 technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 , 2023

arXiv 2023
[2]

The llama 3 herd of models,

A. Dubey, A. Jauhri, A. Pandey, A. Kadian, A. Al-Dahle, A. Letman, A. Mathur, A. Schelten, A. Yang, A. Fan et al., “The llama 3 herd of models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 , 2024

arXiv 2024
[3]

Llamafactory: Unified efficient fine-tuning of 100+ language models,

Y . Zheng, R. Zhang, J. Zhang, Y . Ye, Z. Luo, Z. Feng, and Y . Ma, “Llamafactory: Unified efficient fine-tuning of 100+ language models,” in Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 3: System Demonstrations) . Bangkok, Thailand: Association for Computational Linguistics, 2024. [Online]. Available: ht...

arXiv 2024
[4]

Benefits, limits, and risks of gpt-4 as an ai chatbot for medicine,

P. Lee, S. Bubeck, and J. Petro, “Benefits, limits, and risks of gpt-4 as an ai chatbot for medicine,” New England Journal of Medicine , vol. 388, no. 13, pp. 1233–1239, 2023

work page 2023
[5]

Needed: Introducing hierarchical transformer to eye diseases diagnosis,

X. Ye, M. Xiao, Z. Ning, W. Dai, W. Cui, Y . Du, and Y . Zhou, “Needed: Introducing hierarchical transformer to eye diseases diagnosis,” in Proceedings of the 2023 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining (SDM). SIAM, 2023, pp. 667–675

work page 2023
[6]

Hierarchical interdisciplinary topic detection model for research proposal classification,

M. Xiao, Z. Qiao, Y . Fu, H. Dong, Y . Du, P. Wang, H. Xiong, and Y . Zhou, “Hierarchical interdisciplinary topic detection model for research proposal classification,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , vol. 35, no. 9, pp. 9685–9699, 2023

2023
[7]

Revolutionizing radiology with gpt- based models: current applications, future possibilities and limitations of chatgpt,

A. Lecler, L. Duron, and P. Soyer, “Revolutionizing radiology with gpt- based models: current applications, future possibilities and limitations of chatgpt,” Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging , vol. 104, no. 6, pp. 269–274, 2023

work page 2023

Show all 41 references

[8]

Transfer learning enables predictions in network biology,

C. V . Theodoris, L. Xiao, A. Chopra, M. D. Chaffin, Z. R. Al Sayed, M. C. Hill, H. Mantineo, E. M. Brydon, Z. Zeng, X. S. Liu et al. , “Transfer learning enables predictions in network biology,” Nature, pp. 1–9, 2023

2023
[9]

Do large language models understand chemistry? a conversation with chatgpt,

C. M. Castro Nascimento and A. S. Pimentel, “Do large language models understand chemistry? a conversation with chatgpt,” Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling , vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 1649–1655, 2023

2023
[10]

Automated taxonomy alignment via large language models: bridging the gap between knowledge domains,

W. Cui, M. Xiao, L. Wang, X. Wang, Y . Du, and Y . Zhou, “Automated taxonomy alignment via large language models: bridging the gap between knowledge domains,” Scientometrics, pp. 1–26, 2024

2024
[11]

Resolving the imbalance issue in hierarchical disciplinary topic inference via llm-based data augmentation,

X. Cai, M. Xiao, Z. Ning, and Y . Zhou, “Resolving the imbalance issue in hierarchical disciplinary topic inference via llm-based data augmentation,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 956–961

2023
[12]

A survey on the construction methods and applications of sci-tech big data knowledge graph,

Y . Zhou, W. Wang, Z. Qiao, M. Xiao, and Y . Du, “A survey on the construction methods and applications of sci-tech big data knowledge graph,” Sci. Sin. Inf , vol. 50, no. 7, p. 957, 2020

2020
[13]

Temporal inductive path neural network for temporal knowledge graph reasoning,

H. Dong, P. Wang, M. Xiao, Z. Ning, P. Wang, and Y . Zhou, “Temporal inductive path neural network for temporal knowledge graph reasoning,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 329, p. 104085, 2024

2024
[14]

Biomistral: A collection of open-source pretrained large language models for medical domains,

Y . Labrak, A. Bazoge, E. Morin, P.-A. Gourraud, M. Rouvier, and R. Dufour, “Biomistral: A collection of open-source pretrained large language models for medical domains,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10373, 2024

2024 arXiv
[15]

Biorag: A rag-llm framework for biological question reasoning,

C. Wang, Q. Long, X. Meng, X. Cai, C. Wu, Z. Meng, X. Wang, and Y . Zhou, “Biorag: A rag-llm framework for biological question reasoning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.01107 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[17]

scgpt: Towards building a foundation model for single-cell multi-omics using generative ai,

H. Cui, C. Wang, H. Maan, K. Pang, F. Luo, and B. Wang, “scgpt: Towards building a foundation model for single-cell multi-omics using generative ai,” bioRxiv, pp. 2023–04, 2023

2023
[18]

Large scale foundation model on single-cell transcriptomics,

M. Hao, J. Gong, X. Zeng, C. Liu, Y . Guo, X. Cheng, T. Wang, J. Ma, L. Song, and X. Zhang, “Large scale foundation model on single-cell transcriptomics,” bioRxiv, pp. 2023–05, 2023

2023
[19]

Genecompass: Deciphering universal gene regulatory mechanisms with knowledge-informed cross-species foundation model,

X. Yang, G. Liu, G. Feng, D. Bu, P. Wang, J. Jiang, S. Chen, Q. Yang, Y . Zhang, Z. Man et al., “Genecompass: Deciphering universal gene regulatory mechanisms with knowledge-informed cross-species foundation model,” bioRxiv, pp. 2023–09, 2023

2023
[20]

The ncbi taxonomy database,

S. Federhen, “The ncbi taxonomy database,” Nucleic acids research , vol. 40, no. D1, pp. D136–D143, 2012

2012
[21]

Ncbi taxonomy: a comprehensive update on curation, resources and tools,

C. L. Schoch, S. Ciufo, M. Domrachev, C. L. Hotton, S. Kannan, R. Khovanskaya, D. Leipe, R. Mcveigh, K. O’Neill, B. Robbertse et al., “Ncbi taxonomy: a comprehensive update on curation, resources and tools,” Database, vol. 2020, p. baaa062, 2020

2020
[22]

Single-cell epigenomics: techniques and emerging applications,

O. Schwartzman and A. Tanay, “Single-cell epigenomics: techniques and emerging applications,” Nature Reviews Genetics , vol. 16, no. 12, pp. 716–726, 2015

2015
[23]

Single-cell genome sequencing: current state of the science,

C. Gawad, W. Koh, and S. R. Quake, “Single-cell genome sequencing: current state of the science,” Nature Reviews Genetics , vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 175–188, 2016

2016
[24]

Building a lineage from single cells: genetic techniques for cell lineage tracking,

M. B. Woodworth, K. M. Girskis, and C. A. Walsh, “Building a lineage from single cells: genetic techniques for cell lineage tracking,” Nature Reviews Genetics, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 230–244, 2017

2017
[25]

Enhanced gene selection in single-cell genomics: Pre-filtering synergy and reinforced optimization,

W. Zhang, Z. Meng, D. Wang, M. Wu, K. Liu, Y . Zhou, and M. Xiao, “Enhanced gene selection in single-cell genomics: Pre-filtering synergy and reinforced optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07418 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[26]

Gpt-3: What’s it good for?

R. Dale, “Gpt-3: What’s it good for?” Natural Language Engineering , vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 113–118, 2021

2021
[27]

Gpt-3: Its nature, scope, limits, and consequences,

L. Floridi and M. Chiriatti, “Gpt-3: Its nature, scope, limits, and consequences,” Minds and Machines , vol. 30, pp. 681–694, 2020

2020
[28]

Next-generation transcriptome assembly,

J. A. Martin and Z. Wang, “Next-generation transcriptome assembly,” Nature Reviews Genetics , vol. 12, no. 10, pp. 671–682, 2011

2011
[29]

Transcriptome analysis using next-generation sequencing,

K.-O. Mutz, A. Heilkenbrinker, M. Lönne, J.-G. Walter, and F. Stahl, “Transcriptome analysis using next-generation sequencing,” Current opinion in biotechnology , vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 22–30, 2013

2013
[30]

Single-cell rna sequencing technologies and applications: A brief overview,

D. Jovic, X. Liang, H. Zeng, L. Lin, F. Xu, and Y . Luo, “Single-cell rna sequencing technologies and applications: A brief overview,” Clinical and Translational Medicine , vol. 12, no. 3, p. e694, 2022

2022
[31]

Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome,

U. D. J. G. Institute, “Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome,” nature, vol. 409, no. 6822, pp. 860–921, 2001

2001
[32]

Tracing the temporal-spatial transcriptome landscapes of the human fetal digestive tract using single-cell rna-sequencing,

S. Gao, L. Yan, R. Wang, J. Li, J. Yong, X. Zhou, Y . Wei, X. Wu, X. Wang, X. Fan et al., “Tracing the temporal-spatial transcriptome landscapes of the human fetal digestive tract using single-cell rna-sequencing,” Nature cell biology, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 721–734, 2018

2018
[33]

Challenges in unsupervised clustering of single-cell rna-seq data,

V . Y . Kiselev, T. S. Andrews, and M. Hemberg, “Challenges in unsupervised clustering of single-cell rna-seq data,” Nature Reviews Genetics, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 273–282, 2019

2019
[34]

Transformers in single-cell omics: a review and new perspectives,

A. Szałata, K. Hrovatin, S. Becker, A. Tejada-Lapuerta, H. Cui, B. Wang, and F. J. Theis, “Transformers in single-cell omics: a review and new perspectives,” Nature Methods, vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 1430–1443, 2024

2024
[35]

Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,

J. D. M.-W. C. Kenton and L. K. Toutanova, “Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,” in Proceedings of naacL-HLT, vol. 1, 2019, p. 2

2019
[36]

A survey of gpt-3 family large language models including chatgpt and gpt-4,

K. S. Kalyan, “A survey of gpt-3 family large language models including chatgpt and gpt-4,” Natural Language Processing Journal , p. 100048, 2023

2023
[37]

Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models,

H. Touvron, T. Lavril, G. Izacard, X. Martinet, M.-A. Lachaux, T. Lacroix, B. Rozière, N. Goyal, E. Hambro, F. Azhar et al., “Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971 , 2023

2023 arXiv
[38]

Comprehensive integration of single-cell data,

T. Stuart, A. Butler, P. Hoffman, C. Hafemeister, E. Papalexi, W. M. Mauck, Y . Hao, M. Stoeckius, P. Smibert, and R. Satija, “Comprehensive integration of single-cell data,” cell, vol. 177, no. 7, pp. 1888–1902, 2019

1902
[39]

R language definition,

R. C. Team, “R language definition,” Vienna, Austria: R foundation for statistical computing, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 116, 2000

2000
[40]

Panglaodb: a web server for exploration of mouse and human single-cell rna sequencing data,

O. Franzén, L.-M. Gan, and J. L. Björkegren, “Panglaodb: a web server for exploration of mouse and human single-cell rna sequencing data,” Database, vol. 2019, p. baz046, 2019

2019
[41]

Cellmarker: a manually curated resource of cell markers in human and mouse,

X. Zhang, Y . Lan, J. Xu, F. Quan, E. Zhao, C. Deng, T. Luo, L. Xu, G. Liao, M. Yan et al., “Cellmarker: a manually curated resource of cell markers in human and mouse,” Nucleic acids research, vol. 47, no. D1, pp. D721–D728, 2019

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [16]

Genept: A simple but hard-to-beat foundation model for genes and cells built from chatgpt,

Y . T. Chen and J. Zou, “Genept: A simple but hard-to-beat foundation model for genes and cells built from chatgpt,” bioRxiv, pp. 2023–10, 2023

work page 2023

[2] [1]

Gpt-4 technical report,

J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat et al. , “Gpt-4 technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 , 2023

arXiv 2023

[3] [2]

The llama 3 herd of models,

A. Dubey, A. Jauhri, A. Pandey, A. Kadian, A. Al-Dahle, A. Letman, A. Mathur, A. Schelten, A. Yang, A. Fan et al., “The llama 3 herd of models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 , 2024

arXiv 2024

[4] [3]

Llamafactory: Unified efficient fine-tuning of 100+ language models,

Y . Zheng, R. Zhang, J. Zhang, Y . Ye, Z. Luo, Z. Feng, and Y . Ma, “Llamafactory: Unified efficient fine-tuning of 100+ language models,” in Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 3: System Demonstrations) . Bangkok, Thailand: Association for Computational Linguistics, 2024. [Online]. Available: ht...

arXiv 2024

[5] [4]

Benefits, limits, and risks of gpt-4 as an ai chatbot for medicine,

P. Lee, S. Bubeck, and J. Petro, “Benefits, limits, and risks of gpt-4 as an ai chatbot for medicine,” New England Journal of Medicine , vol. 388, no. 13, pp. 1233–1239, 2023

work page 2023

[6] [5]

Needed: Introducing hierarchical transformer to eye diseases diagnosis,

X. Ye, M. Xiao, Z. Ning, W. Dai, W. Cui, Y . Du, and Y . Zhou, “Needed: Introducing hierarchical transformer to eye diseases diagnosis,” in Proceedings of the 2023 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining (SDM). SIAM, 2023, pp. 667–675

work page 2023

[7] [6]

Hierarchical interdisciplinary topic detection model for research proposal classification,

M. Xiao, Z. Qiao, Y . Fu, H. Dong, Y . Du, P. Wang, H. Xiong, and Y . Zhou, “Hierarchical interdisciplinary topic detection model for research proposal classification,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , vol. 35, no. 9, pp. 9685–9699, 2023

2023

[8] [7]

Revolutionizing radiology with gpt- based models: current applications, future possibilities and limitations of chatgpt,

A. Lecler, L. Duron, and P. Soyer, “Revolutionizing radiology with gpt- based models: current applications, future possibilities and limitations of chatgpt,” Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging , vol. 104, no. 6, pp. 269–274, 2023

work page 2023