This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
The increasing number of computational methods designed to predict the effects of genetic perturbations on cellular gene expression profiles has led to a need for rigorous evaluation metrics. Recent benchmarking studies rely on correlation or cosine similarity of differential expression relative to a shared population of control cells. We show that these metrics are systematically inflated by statistical bias induced by reusing the same control population to define both quantities being compared. As a result, even non-informative methods can appear to perform well, particularly in datasets with limited numbers of control cells. Reanalysis of published datasets using a simple control-splitting procedure that removes this bias leads to a substantial reduction in performance previously attributed to biological signal.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nicol et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: