ArticleBiometrics2023
A Bayesian multivariate mixture model for high throughput spatial transcriptomics.
Article in Biometrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- SpaceBF: spatial coexpression analysis using Bayesian fused approaches in spatial omics datasets.GigaScience · 2026Article
- A Bayesian nonparametric method for jointly clustering multiple spatial transcriptomic datasets and simultaneous gene selection.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Computational methods and biomarker discovery strategies for spatial proteomics: a review in immuno-oncology.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Review
- Analysis of community connectivity in spatial transcriptomics data.Frontiers in applied mathematics and statistics · 2024Article
- Statistical Power Analysis for Designing Bulk, Single-Cell, and Spatial Transcriptomics Experiments: Review, Tutorial, and Perspectives.Biomolecules · 2023Review
- Probabilistic embedding, clustering, and alignment for integrating spatial transcriptomics data with PRECAST.Nature communications · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
High throughput spatial transcriptomics (HST) is a rapidly emerging class of experimental technologies that allow for profiling gene expression in tissue samples at or near single-cell resolution while retaining the spatial location of each sequencing unit within the tissue sample. Through analyzing HST data, we seek to identify sub-populations of cells within a tissue sample that may inform biological phenomena. Existing computational methods either ignore the spatial heterogeneity in gene expression profiles, fail to account for important statistical features such as skewness, or are heuristic-based network clustering methods that lack the inferential benefits of statistical modeling. To address this gap, we develop SPRUCE: a Bayesian spatial multivariate finite mixture model based on multivariate skew-normal distributions, which is capable of identifying distinct cellular sub-populations in HST data. We further implement a novel combination of Pólya-Gamma data augmentation and spatial random effects to infer spatially correlated mixture component membership probabilities without relying on approximate inference techniques. Via a simulation study, we demonstrate the detrimental inferential effects of ignoring skewness or spatial correlation in HST data. Using publicly available human brain HST data, SPRUCE outperforms existing methods in recovering expertly annotated brain layers. Finally, our application of SPRUCE to human breast cancer HST data indicates that SPRUCE can distinguish distinct cell populations within the tumor microenvironment. An R package spruce for fitting the proposed models is available through The Comprehensive R Archive Network.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.