ArticleGenome biology2025
Benchmarking multi-slice integration and downstream applications in spatial transcriptomics data analysis.
Article in Genome biology, 2025. 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.
- Ten quick tips for spatial transcriptomics analysis.PLoS computational biology · 2026Review
- GenOT: generative optimal transport enables spatiotemporal interpolation and generation in cross-platform spatial transcriptomics.Genome biology · 2026Article
- SECTOR: structural entropy-based learning of spatiotemporal organisation in spatial transcriptomics.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Whole-organism spatial transcriptomics at single-cell resolution inbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Benchmarking multi-slice integration and downstream applications in spatial transcriptomics data analysis.Genome biology · 2025Article
- Neuronal precursor cell persistence in ganglioglioma is associated with extracellular matrix remodeling and immune cell infiltration.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSpatial transcriptomics preserves spatial context of tissues while capturing gene expression. As the technology advances, researchers are increasingly generating data from multiple tissue sections, creating a growing demand for multi-slice integration methods. These methods aim to generate spatially aware embeddings that jointly capture spatial and transcriptomic information, preserving biological signals while mitigating technical artifacts such as batch effects. However, the reliability of these methods varies, and the growing diversity of technologies makes integration even more challenging. This underscores the need for a comprehensive benchmark to evaluate their performance, which is still lacking.
resultsTo systematically evaluate the performance of multi-slice integration methods, we propose a comprehensive benchmarking framework covering four key tasks that form an upstream-to-downstream pipeline: multi-slice integration, spatial clustering, spatial alignment, slice representation. For each task, we perform detailed analyses of the methods and provide actionable recommendations. Our results reveal substantial data-dependent variation in performance across tasks. We further investigate the relationships between upstream and downstream tasks, showing that downstream performance often depends on upstream quality.
conclusionsOur study provides a comprehensive benchmark of 12 multi-slice integration methods across four key tasks using 19 diverse datasets. Our results reveal that method performance is highly dependent on application context, dataset size, and technology. We also identified strong interdependencies between upstream and downstream tasks, highlighting the importance of robust early-stage analysis.
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.