Interpreting Single-Cell and Spatial Omics Data Using Deep Neural Network Training Dynamics
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Single-cell and spatial omics datasets can be organized and interpreted by annotating single cells to distinct types, states, locations or phenotypes. However, cell annotations are inherently ambiguous, as discrete labels with subjective interpretations are assigned to heterogeneous cell populations on the basis of noisy, sparse and high-dimensional data. Here we developed Annotatability, a framework for identifying annotation mismatches and characterizing biological data structure by monitoring the dynamics and difficulty of training a deep neural network over such annotated data. Following this, we developed a signal-aware graph embedding method that enables downstream analysis of biological signals. This embedding captures cellular communities associated with target signals. Using Annotatability, we address key challenges in the interpretation of genomic data, demonstrated over eight single-cell RNA sequencing and spatial omics datasets, including identifying erroneous annotations and intermediate cell states, delineating developmental or disease trajectories, and capturing cellular heterogeneity. These results underscore the broad applicability of annotation-trainability analysis via Annotatability for unraveling cellular diversity and interpreting collective cell behaviors in health and disease.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Proteogenomic studies in hepatocellular carcinoma have identified three molecular classes: immune-hot with favorable outcomes, proliferative and TP53-enriched with angiogenic signaling and poorer outcomes, and CTNNB1-enriched with mTOR-pathway activation.
“In hepatocellular carcinoma, for example, proteogenomic studies integrating whole-genome sequencing, RNA sequencing, and quantitative proteomics have identified three molecular classes: immune-“hot” with favorable outcomes, proliferative and TP53-enriched with angiogenic signaling and poorer outcomes, and CTNNB1-enriched with mTOR-pathway activation [88,89,90].”
From Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Oncology: From Productivity Enhancement to Creative Discovery (2025) · cites this paper as [89]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 77 · Cited by 16
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- [16]Arpit, D. et al. A closer look at memorization in deep networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning (eds Precup, D. & Teh, Y. W.) 233–242 (PMLR, 2017).
- [17]Pleiss, G., Zhang, T., Elenberg, E. & Weinberger, K. Q. Identifying mislabeled data using the area under the margin ranking. Adv. Neural Inform. Process. Syst. 33, 17044–17056 (2020).
- [19]Arazo, E., Ortego, D., Albert, P., O’Connor, N. & McGuinness, K. Unsupervised label noise modeling and loss correction. In International Conference on Machine Learning, (eds Chaudhuri, K. & Salakhutdinov, R.) 312–321 (PMLR, 2019).
- [46]Hacohen, G., Choshen, L. & Weinshall, D. Let’s agree to agree: neural networks share classification order on real datasets. In International Conference on Machine Learning (eds Daumé, H. III & Singh, A.) 3950–3960 (PMLR, 2020).
- [47]Paul, M., Ganguli, S. & Dziugaite, G. K. Deep learning on a data diet: finding important examples early in training. Adv. Neural Inform. Process. Syst. 34, 20596–20607 (2021).
- [49]Paszke, A. et al. Automatic differentiation in PyTorch. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (eds Guyon, I. et al.) 8024–8035 (MIT Press, 2017).
- [53]Karin, J. Interpreting single-cell and spatial omics data using deep neural networks training dynamics. Zenodo10.5281/zenodo.13838816 (2024). PMC11659171 39633094
- Authors
- Karin, J., Mintz, R., Raveh, B., & Nitzan, M.
- Affiliations
- Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
- Corresponding author
- Raveh, Barak
- Nitzan, Mor
- Venue
- Nature Computational Science
- Published
- 2024-12-04
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 941-954
- ISSN
- 2662-8457 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC11659171
- OpenAlex
- W4405021966
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 77
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 2.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature Computational Science (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- The Israeli Council for Higher Education Ph.D. fellowship The Center for Interdisciplinary Data Science Research at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
- Minerva Center on Cell Intelligence
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biophysics › Cell Image Analysis Techniques
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
- Keywords
- single-cell RNA sequencing, spatial omics, cell type annotation, graph embedding, cellular heterogeneity, developmental trajectories, disease trajectories
- MeSH terms
- Deep Learning, Animals, Humans, Neural Networks, Computer, Sequence Analysis, RNA, Computational Biology, Genomics, Single-Cell Analysis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review