ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2026
Structure-preserving multivariate hypothesis testing for mass spectrometry imaging and single-cell data.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2026. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
motivationMass spectrometry imaging (MSI) and single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) offer high-resolution views into tissue and cellular heterogeneity. However, conventional statistical analyses often treat sub-measurements (pixels or cells) as independent, ignoring their nested origin from individual samples. This assumption inflates the effective sample size, increases false discoveries, and undermines biological interpretation. Pixel- or cell-level averaging avoids this but sacrifices spatial or cellular resolution.
resultsWe evaluated block-SAM on both simulated and real-world datasets. In DESI-MSI data from kidney, lung, and ovarian tumors, block-SAM consistently identified fewer-but more reliable-differential features compared to traditional-SAM. For example, in the kidney dataset, traditional-SAM identified 569 features between tumor and normal tissue, while block-SAM identified 186-all overlapping but excluding 383 likely false positives. Applied to a metastatic RCC scRNA-seq dataset comparing immune checkpoint blockade (ICB)-treated versus untreated patients, traditional-SAM identified over 19,000 differentially expressed genes in malignant cells; block-SAM reduced this to 19. These results demonstrate block-SAM's ability to reduce false discoveries while retaining biologically meaningful signals across diverse high-dimensional datasets. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: All code and data associated with this study are deposited on Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18273497). The samr package is freely available on the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN).
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.