henhaobio
Sign in

bioRxivBioinformaticsPreprint

Assessing the limits of zero-shot foundation models in single-cell biology

Katarzyna KedzierskaiD, Lorin A. CrawfordiD, Ava P. AminiiD, Alex Xijie LuiD

PDFDOI

Abstract

The advent and success of foundation models such as GPT has sparked growing interest in their application to single-cell biology. Models like Geneformer and scGPT have emerged with the promise of serving as versatile tools for this specialized field. However, the efficacy of these models, particularly in zero-shot settings where models are not fine-tuned but used without any further training, remains an open question, especially as practical constraints require useful models to function in settings that preclude fine-tuning (e.g., discovery settings where labels are not fully known). This paper presents a rigorous evaluation of the zero-shot performance of these proposed single-cell foundation models. We assess their utility in tasks such as cell type clustering and batch effect correction, and evaluate the generality of their pretraining objectives. Our results indicate that both Geneformer and scGPT exhibit limited reliability in zero-shot settings and often underperform compared to simpler methods. These findings serve as a cautionary note for the deployment of proposed single-cell foundation models and highlight the need for more focused research to realize their potential.2

Abstract summary

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

Used without fine-tuning, Geneformer and scGPT show limited reliability for cell type clustering and batch effect correction, often landing behind simpler methods.

Single-cell foundation models are promoted as general-purpose tools, yet many practical uses rule out fine-tuning, for instance discovery work where the labels are not fully known. This evaluation targets that zero-shot regime directly and also asks how general the models' pretraining objectives are, rather than reporting performance after task-specific training.

Key results

  1. SuggestedBoth pretrained models are reported to be of limited reliability when applied without further training, and they often do worse than simpler approaches at grouping cells by type and at removing batch effects.

    Stated as the outcome of the evaluation for Geneformer and scGPT; the abstract names no datasets, no competing simpler methods and no metric values, so the margin is not quantified here. · Abstract

  2. ClaimedBeyond task performance, the generality of the two models' pretraining objectives is itself assessed, and the authors read the combined results as a reason for caution before deploying such models.

    Listed as part of the evaluation alongside the clustering and batch correction tasks; no outcome measure is reported for the pretraining-objective analysis in the abstract. · Abstract

Methods, data and reproducibility

Two published single-cell foundation models, Geneformer and scGPT, are evaluated in the zero-shot setting, that is used as released with no fine-tuning. Their utility is judged on cell type clustering and batch effect correction against simpler methods, and the generality of their pretraining objectives is examined.

Methods & tools
Geneformer, scGPT
Limitations (2)
  • No datasets, baseline methods or metric values are named in the abstract, so the size and consistency of the reported shortfall cannot be assessed from this text. · noted in this summary
  • Scope is two models, the named clustering and batch-correction tasks, and the zero-shot regime only; nothing is reported here about how these models perform after fine-tuning. · noted in this summary

Read this if you are tempted to use Geneformer or scGPT off the shelf for clustering or integration and need to know whether they beat simpler baselines.

Citations
61

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.