ArticleiScience2026
Overcoming missing data in spatial metabolomics with machine learning imputation to accelerate downstream discovery.
Article in iScience, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mass spectrometry imaging (MSI)-based spatial metabolomics exhibits extensive missing values; yet, practical guidance on how imputation choices affect both imputation accuracy and downstream spatial analyses remains limited. In this study, we evaluated eight imputation methods, including both existing approaches and a graph convolutional network (GCN)-based method specifically designed for spatial metabolomics data, to identify suitable approaches for spatial metabolomics. To enable comprehensive assessment, we developed an evaluation framework focusing on two objective criteria: (a) imputation accuracy and (b) preservation of spatial cluster structure. We assembled six benchmark datasets spanning mouse brain and liver, human kidney and stomach, and plant seed sections, and conducted controlled dropout simulations of missing values. Across both evaluation dimensions, including imputation accuracy and preservation of spatial cluster structure, RF ranked first overall, and GCN ranked second in both dimensions. Overall, this systematic, dual-perspective benchmark study provides guidance for selecting imputation strategies in spatial metabolomics 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.