ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Cell-level random splits leak group-owned answers in single-cell benchmarks.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Machine learning models in single-cell biology increasingly forecast differentiation, reprogramming and therapeutic response from early transcriptomic profiles. Testing whether a model has learned real biology requires held-out cells. Single-cell data, however, are grouped: cells from the same clone, patient or batch share the same label. A random split therefore places relatives of each test cell, carrying its label, in the training set, and a model can score well by memorizing a relative instead of learning a transferable rule. Grouped validation removes this leakage but leaves far fewer independent units behind each error bar. Here we show how to estimate this leakage before training any model, from two properties of the data: exposure, the fraction of test cells with relatives in training, and retrievability, how often a nearest-neighbor search returns such a relative rather than an unrelated cell. Across lineage-barcoded and patient data, exposure determines whether a random split opens a leakage channel, and retrievability determines how much it can inflate the score. The inflation is negligible where cell state has decoupled from ancestry, much larger where clonal sisters remain close in expression space, and in a patient cohort large enough to overturn a clinical conclusion. We also provide leakcheck, which computes both properties in seconds, before the outcome model is fitted.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.