ArticlePLoS computational biology2026
A comparative study of statistical methods for identifying differentially expressed genes in spatial transcriptomics.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accurate prediction in reconstructed spatial transcriptomes does not ensure valid biological discovery.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Disruption of hippocampal upstream regulators of mTOR and insulin pathways in Down syndrome with Alzheimer's disease neuropathology: Preliminary observations.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Article
- Differential expression analysis for spatially correlated data using smiDE.Genome biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Spatial transcriptomics (ST) provides unprecedented insights into gene expression patterns while retaining spatial context, making it a valuable tool for understanding complex tissue architectures, such as those found in cancers. Seurat, by far the most popular tool for analyzing ST data, uses the Wilcoxon rank-sum test by default for differential expression analysis. However, as a nonparametric method that disregards spatial correlations, the Wilcoxon test can lead to inflated false positive rates and misleading findings. This limitation highlights the need for a more robust statistical approach that effectively incorporates spatial correlations. To this end, we propose a Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) framework as a robust solution for differential gene expression analysis in ST. We conducted a comprehensive comparison of the GEE-based tests with existing methods, including the Wilcoxon rank-sum test and z-test. By appropriately accounting for spatial correlations, extensive simulations showed that the GEE test with robust standard error, referred to as the Independent GEE, demonstrated superior Type I error control and comparable power relative to other methods. Applications to ST datasets from breast and prostate cancer showed poor calibration of the p-values and potential false positive findings from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Our comparative study based on simulations and real data applications suggests that the Independent GEE test is well-suited for ST data, offering more accurate identification of biologically relevant gene expression changes and complementing the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. We have implemented the proposed method in R package "SpatialGEE", available on GitHub.
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.