A Large-Scale Comparative Analysis of Imputation Methods for Single-Cell RNA Sequencing Data

TL;DR

This study comprehensively benchmarks 15 imputation methods for single-cell RNA sequencing data, revealing traditional methods often outperform deep learning approaches across various datasets and analyses.

Contribution

It provides a large-scale comparison of diverse imputation techniques, highlighting the importance of task-specific evaluation in scRNA-seq data analysis.

Findings

Traditional methods generally outperform deep learning methods.

Strong numerical recovery does not always improve downstream biological analyses.

Method performance varies across datasets and analysis types.

Abstract

Background: 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 artifacts distort gene expression distributions and compromise downstream analyses. Numerous imputation methods have been proposed to recover latent transcriptional signals. These methods range from traditional statistical models to deep learning (DL)-based methods. However, their comparative performance remains unclear, as existing benchmarks evaluate only a limited subset of methods, datasets, and downstream analyses. Results: We present a comprehensive benchmark of 15 scRNA-seq imputation methods spanning 7 methodological categories, including traditional and DL-based methods. Methods are evaluated across 30 datasets from 10 experimental protocols on 6 downstream analyses. Results show that traditional methods, such as model-based, smoothing-based, and low-rank matrix-based methods, generally outperform DL-based methods, including diffusion-based, GAN-based, GNN-based, and autoencoder-based methods. 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, method performance varies substantially across datasets, protocols, and downstream analyses, with no single method consistently outperforming others. Conclusions: Our findings provide practical guidance for selecting imputation methods tailored to specific analytical objectives and underscore the importance of task-specific evaluation when assessing imputation performance in scRNA-seq data analysis.