ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2026
Benchmarking cell-type-specific spatially variable gene detection methods.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 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
Cell-type-specific spatially variable genes (ctSVGs) integrate cell-type composition with spatially varying gene expression, revealing novel insights into molecular mechanisms through spatial transcriptomics. However, the emerging methods devoted to ctSVG detection have not been systematically evaluated, limiting their broader application and future algorithmic improvements. Here, we present a comprehensive evaluation of six state-of-the-art ctSVG detection methods, in terms of consistency, predictive performance, rotational robustness, scalability, and biological interpretability. We benchmark these methods on 46 real datasets, and a wide range of simulated datasets encompassing diverse biological and technical scenarios. Several key observations are yielded: (i) current algorithms complement each other in predictive performance and computational efficiency; (ii) STANCE and Celina achieve a better predictive performance on multiple spatial patterns, while C-SIDE, spVC, ctSVG, and CTSV exhibit tighter control of false positives; (iii) STANCE, ctSVG, CTSV, and Celina have better overall performance on single-cell resolution data; (iv) rotation invariance still warrants further investigation; (v) Celina appears to have a relative superiority in most metrics, though it tends to generate spurious signals affected by nontargeted cell types; and (vi) algorithmic choice strongly influences downstream biological interpretation. Together, our study offers valuable guidance for tool selection and algorithmic development.
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.