ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
Beyond benchmarking: an expert-guided consensus approach to spatially aware clustering.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Spatial omics technologies have revolutionized the study of tissue architecture and cellular heterogeneity by integrating molecular profiles with spatial localization. In spatially resolved transcriptomics, delineating higher-order anatomical structures is critical for understanding how cellular organization affects tissue and organ function. Since 2020, more than 50 spatially aware clustering (SAC) methods have been developed for this purpose. However, the reliability of current benchmarks is undermined by their narrow focus on Visium and brain tissue datasets, as well as incorrect interpretation of manual annotation as ground truth. Here, we present SACCELERATOR, a community-driven, extensible framework that standardizes data formatting, method integration, and metric evaluation, and is designed to rapidly incorporate new methods and datasets. SACCELERATOR currently includes 22 SAC methods applied to 15 datasets spanning 9 technologies and diverse tissue types. Our analysis revealed substantial limitations in the generalizability and reproducibility of SAC methods across tissues and platforms. We also demonstrate that anatomical labels commonly used as ground truths are often biased, potentially error-prone, and, in some cases, unsuitable for benchmarking efforts. Rather than scoring and comparing methods, we propose a consensus-guided workflow that aggregates clustering results to generate consensus representations. Descriptive spatial metrics highlight areas of high entropy where method disagreement is highest, enabling targeted feedback for tissue experts. Applied to brain and cancer datasets, this approach uncovered biologically meaningful patterns overlooked by individual methods and manual annotations. Our results underscore the need for iterative, expert-in-the-loop analysis and reveal that traditional evaluation metrics do not always capture the subjective qualities of results. By improving tissue annotation and addressing key benchmarking limitations, SACCELERATOR provides a robust foundation for advancing spatial omics research.
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.