Sign in

Abstract

Large-scale foundation models, which are pre-trained on massive, unlabeled datasets and subsequently fine-tuned on specific tasks, have recently achieved unparalleled success on a wide array of applications, including in healthcare and biology. In this paper, we explore two foundation models recently developed for single-cell RNA sequencing data, scBERT and scGPT. Focusing on the fine-tuning task of cell type annotation, we explore the relative performance of pre-trained models compared to a simple baseline, L1-regularized logistic regression, including in the few-shot setting. We perform ablation studies to understand whether pretraining improves model performance and to better understand the difficulty of the pre-training task in scBERT. Finally, using scBERT as an example, we demonstrate the potential sensitivity of fine-tuning to hyperparameter settings and parameter initializations. Taken together, our results highlight the importance of rigorously testing foundation models against well established baselines, establishing challenging fine-tuning tasks on which to benchmark foundation models, and performing deep introspection into the embeddings learned by the model in order to more effectively harness these models to transform single-cell data analysis. Code is available at https://github.com/clinicalml/sc-foundation-eval.

02 /Specification & Classification

Click any tag to browse matching papers

Abstract summary

Verified abstract synthesis

Claude Opus 5.5 · xhigh effort · 18 Oct 2026 · from the abstract · CC BY-NC 4.0

An evaluation of scBERT and scGPT on cell type annotation against L1-regularized logistic regression, with ablations of pre-training and tests of fine-tuning stability.

Foundation models pre-trained on large unlabeled single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) corpora are being adopted quickly, but it is unclear how much of their downstream accuracy comes from pre-training rather than from the fine-tuning task itself. This work puts two such models next to a simple regularized linear classifier and dissects the pre-training step, arguing that the field needs harder benchmarks and stronger baselines before trusting the models.

Key results

  1. ClaimedscBERT and scGPT were fine-tuned for cell type annotation and compared with L1-regularized logistic regression, including in a few-shot regime with little labelled data.

    The abstract describes the comparison and the few-shot setting but reports no accuracy, F1 or other metric, no datasets, and does not state which approach won. · Abstract

  2. ClaimedAblations were run to ask whether pre-training actually helps the downstream task, and to gauge how hard scBERT's pre-training objective is.

    Stated as an ablation study on pre-training in scBERT; the direction and size of any effect are not given in the available text. · Abstract

  3. SuggestedFine-tuning scBERT can be sensitive to hyperparameter choices and to parameter initialization, so a single fine-tuning run may not characterize the model.

    Reported for scBERT as an example case; no spread across seeds or hyperparameter sweep results is quantified in the abstract. · Abstract

Methods, data and reproducibility

Two pre-trained scRNA-seq models, scBERT and scGPT, were fine-tuned on cell type annotation and benchmarked against L1-regularized logistic regression, including few-shot settings; pre-training was ablated, and fine-tuning was repeated across hyperparameter settings and parameter initializations.

Methods & tools
scBERT, scGPT, L1-regularized logistic regression
Limitations (2)
  • Only two foundation models and essentially one downstream task, cell type annotation, are examined, so the conclusions may not carry to other scRNA-seq models or tasks. · noted in this summary
  • No datasets, cell counts or evaluation metrics appear in the available text, so the comparison with the logistic-regression baseline cannot be judged from it. · noted in this summary

Who should read:Read this if you are considering a pre-trained single-cell model for annotation and want to know how it is checked against a plain linear baseline.

Reproducibility ledger

Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.

Sign in to file a reproducibility report.

Similarity Map
SelectedSame fieldCross-field
THISLiu '26Alsabbagh '23Hao '24Atti '25Yang '22Han '26
75% semantic matchBioinformatics
Tianyu Liu, Kexing Li, Yuge Wang+2 more·Advanced Science·Mar 23, 2026· 62 citations