↓ Skip to main content

The shaky foundations of simulating single-cell RNA sequencing data

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Biology, March 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
42 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The shaky foundations of simulating single-cell RNA sequencing data
Published in
Genome Biology, March 2023
DOI 10.1186/s13059-023-02904-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helena L. Crowell, Sarah X. Morillo Leonardo, Charlotte Soneson, Mark D. Robinson

Abstract

With the emergence of hundreds of single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) datasets, the number of computational tools to analyze aspects of the generated data has grown rapidly. As a result, there is a recurring need to demonstrate whether newly developed methods are truly performant-on their own as well as in comparison to existing tools. Benchmark studies aim to consolidate the space of available methods for a given task and often use simulated data that provide a ground truth for evaluations, thus demanding a high quality standard results credible and transferable to real data. Here, we evaluated methods for synthetic scRNA-seq data generation in their ability to mimic experimental data. Besides comparing gene- and cell-level quality control summaries in both one- and two-dimensional settings, we further quantified these at the batch- and cluster-level. Secondly, we investigate the effect of simulators on clustering and batch correction method comparisons, and, thirdly, which and to what extent quality control summaries can capture reference-simulation similarity. Our results suggest that most simulators are unable to accommodate complex designs without introducing artificial effects, they yield over-optimistic performance of integration and potentially unreliable ranking of clustering methods, and it is generally unknown which summaries are important to ensure effective simulation-based method comparisons.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Student > Master 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 13 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 14%
Computer Science 3 7%
Unspecified 2 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 16 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 April 2023.
All research outputs
#1,386,628
of 25,791,495 outputs
Outputs from Genome Biology
#1,079
of 4,517 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,711
of 424,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Biology
#18
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,791,495 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,517 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 424,691 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.