Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40557160›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2025

Driving innovations in cancer research through spatial metabolomics: a bibliometric review of trends and hotspot.

Shupeng Chen, Yuzhe Zhang, Xiaojian Li, Ye Zhang, Yingjian Zeng

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Shupeng Chen *School of Clinical Medicine, Jiangxi University of Chinese Medicine, Nanchang, China.
Yuzhe Zhang *The First Laboratory of Cancer Institute, The First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, China.
Xiaojian LiSchool of Clinical Medicine, Jiangxi University of Chinese Medicine, Nanchang, China.
Ye ZhangThe First Laboratory of Cancer Institute, The First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, China.
Yingjian ZengHematology Department, Affiliated Hospital of Jiangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Hematology Department, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Spatial metabolomics has revolutionized cancer research by offering unprecedented insights into the metabolic heterogeneity of the tumor microenvironment (TME). Unlike conventional metabolomics, which lacks spatial resolution, spatial metabolomics enables the visualization of metabolic interactions among cancer cells, stromal components, and immune cells within their native tissue context. Despite its growing significance, a systematic and visualized analysis of spatial metabolomics in cancer research remains lacking, particularly in the integration of multi-omics data and the standardization of methodologies for comprehensive tumor metabolic mapping. Objectives: This study aims to conduct a bibliometric analysis to systematically evaluate the development trends, key contributors, research hotspots, and future directions of spatial metabolomics in cancer research. Methods: A bibliometric approach was employed using data retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection. Analytical tools such as VOSviewer and CiteSpace were utilized to visualize and assess co-citation networks, keyword co-occurrence, and institutional collaborations. Key metrics, including publication trends, authorship influence, country contributions, and journal impact, were analyzed to map the research landscape in this domain. Results: A total of 182 publications on spatial metabolomics in cancer research were identified over the past two decades, with a notable surge in research output beginning in 2018. The field has experienced accelerated growth, with an annual average of 40 publications since 2021, reflecting its increasing relevance in cancer studies. Among 28 contributing countries, China (n=53), the United States (n=35), Germany (n=18), and the United Kingdom (n=13) have been the most active contributors. China leads in publication volume, while the United States exhibits the highest citation impact, indicating significant research influence. International collaboration networks are particularly strong among the United States, Germany, and China, underscoring the global interest in this emerging field. Analysis of key authors and institutions identifies He Jiuming as the most prolific author and Song Xiaowei as the researcher with the highest average citations. Other influential authors include Abliz Zeper and Sun Chenglong. Leading research institutions driving advancements in this field include the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, Harvard Medical School, and Stanford University. Regarding journal impact, Nature Communications (n=11), Journal of Pharmaceutical Analysis (n=9), and Nature Methods (n=8) are the most active publishing platforms in this domain. Citation analysis reveals that Cell, BioEssays, and Genome Medicine are among the most highly cited journals, reflecting the interdisciplinary nature of spatial metabolomics research.

Indexed as

BibliometricsBiomedical ResearchMetabolomicsNeoplasmsHumansTumor Microenvironmentbibliometric analysisimmune escapemetabolic heterogeneitymulti-omics integrationresearch trendsscientific collaborationspatial metabolomicstumor microenvironment

Identifiers

PMID40557160
PMCPMC12185457

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.