Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42041225›Full record

ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2026

Benchmarking cell-type-specific spatially variable gene detection methods.

Hui Yao, Shuai Mu, Fei He, Zhaoyuan Fang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Hui YaoDepartment of Colorectal Surgery and Oncology, the Second Affiliated Hospital, and Center for Biomedical Systems and Informatics, Zhejiang University-University of Edinburgh Institute (ZJU-UoE Institute), Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 866 Yuhangtang Road, Hangzhou 310000, Zhejiang, China.ORCID 0009-0009-7701-4172
Shuai MuSenior Department of Oncology, The First Medical Center of Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) General Hospital, 28 Fuxing Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100039, China.ORCID 0000-0001-9832-1299
Fei HeShanghai Neo-Biotechnology Co., Ltd., 518 XinZhuan Road, Shanghai 201612, China.ORCID 0000-0001-9515-9898
Zhaoyuan FangDepartment of Colorectal Surgery and Oncology, the Second Affiliated Hospital, and Center for Biomedical Systems and Informatics, Zhejiang University-University of Edinburgh Institute (ZJU-UoE Institute), Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 866 Yuhangtang Road, Hangzhou 310000, Zhejiang, China.ORCID 0000-0002-0393-2052

Funding

Huadong Medicine Joint Funds of the Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China LHDMZ23H160006 to Z.F.Medical Interdisciplinary Innovation Program 2024National Natural Science Foundation of China 82273093National Natural Science Foundation of China T2341024 to Z.F.Zhejiang University School of Medicine Z.F.
6 · The paper itself

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

AlgorithmsComputational BiologyGene Expression ProfilingAnimalsBenchmarkingHumansSpatial Transcriptomicsalgorithm benchmarkingcell-type-specific spatially variable genesspatial transcriptomics

Identifiers

PMID42041225
PMCPMC13112436

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.