跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+0新增论文
+0其中 AI 相关
+2已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-08 08:12 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-08 06:02各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-07 08:21 — 2026-11-08 08:21(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-08 08:12最近发现新增版本:2026-11-08 06:02库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-06 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

17,100 已收录论文14,661 AI 相关4,057 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-08 08:11(北京时间)
版本更新 · v3arXiv:2603.24626

One Method Does Not Fit All: A Large-Scale Benchmark of Imputation Methods for Single-Cell RNA Sequencing Data

Yuichiro Iwashita, Ahtisham Fazeel Abbasi, Koichi Kise, Andreas Dengel, Muhammad Nabeel Asim

原文摘要

Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) enables gene expression profiling at cellular resolution but is inherently affected by sparsity caused by dropout events, where expressed genes are recorded as zeros due to technical limitations. These dropout events distort gene expression distributions and compromise downstream analyses. To address this challenge, numerous traditional and deep learning (DL)-based imputation methods have been developed to detect dropout events and impute their true expression values. However, evaluations of these methods have largely been restricted to specific downstream tasks and limited datasets, and large-scale systematic comparisons under standardized benchmarking conditions are lacking. To fill this gap, we present a comprehensive framework that evaluates 16 imputation methods across 10 experimental protocols, 6 downstream tasks, and 30 benchmark datasets. Through extensive experimentation, we systematically investigate the strengths, limitations, and task-specific performance of these methods under consistent evaluation settings. Our results show that traditional methods perform relatively better across a wide range of downstream tasks, whereas DL-based methods are more variable. In addition, strong performance in numerical gene expression recovery does not necessarily translate into improved biological interpretability in downstream analyses, including cell clustering, differential expression analysis, marker gene analysis, trajectory analysis, and cell type annotation. Furthermore, performance varies substantially across datasets, protocols, and downstream analyses, with no single method consistently outperforming the others. Our findings provide practical guidance for selecting imputation methods tailored to specific analytical objectives and underscore the importance of task-specific evaluation in scRNA-seq data analysis.

q-bio.GN · cs.LG · stat.ML