Deep learning does not outperform classical machine learning for cell-type annotation is a research paper (2019). On theSindex it has a DataRank of 0.483. It has been cited 24 times.
Deep learning has revolutionized image analysis and natural language processing with remarkable accuracies in prediction tasks, such as image labeling and semantic segmentation or named-entity recognition and semantic role labeling. Specifically, the combination of algorithmic and hardware advances with the appearance of large and well-labeled datasets has led up to seminal contributions in these fields. The emergence of large amounts of data from single-cell RNA-seq and the recent global effort to chart all cell types in the Human Cell Atlas has attracted an interest in deep-learning applications. However, all current approaches are unsupervised, i.e. , learning of latent spaces without using any cell labels, even though supervised learning approaches are often more powerful in feature learning and the most popular approach in the current AI revolution by far. Here, we ask why this is the case. In particular we ask whether supervised deep learning can be used for cell annotation, i.e. to predict cell-type labels from single-cell gene expression profiles. After evaluating 10 classification methods across 14 datasets, we notably find that deep learning does not outperform classical machine-learning methods in the task. Thus, cell-type prediction based on gene-signature derived cell-type labels is potentially too simplistic a task for complex non-linear methods, which demands better labels of functional single-cell readouts.
FAIR checklist signals are shown for context only and do not affect DataRank scoring.
Base Score Contribution
0.483
From this paper's citation signal
Citation Network Contribution
0
Citation network not refreshed for this result
This paper's DataRank is currently driven only by its base citation score. Citation network data was not refreshed for this result.
Learn more about DataRank methodology →DataRank blends this paper's own citation count with the influence of the papers that cite it. Here, roughly 100% comes from its base citations and 0% from the citation network.
Citers are pulled from OpenAlex sorted by cited_by_count:descand capped per paper, so when the cap binds we keep the highest-signal references and the score is reproducible across reruns.