ArticleNature methods2026
Beyond benchmarking: an expert-guided consensus approach to spatially aware clustering.
Article in Nature methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Embedding AI in biology - part 2.Nature methods · 2026Article
- Analysis of multicellular anatomical structures from spatial omics data using sosta.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Beyond benchmarking: an expert-guided consensus approach to spatially aware clustering.Nature methods · 2026Article
- Spatial Multiomics Reveal Insights Into ADC Efficacy.European journal of immunology · 2026Review
- On metrics for subpopulation detection in single-cell and spatial omics data.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Spatial omics technologies have revolutionized the study of tissue architecture and cellular heterogeneity by integrating molecular profiles with spatial localization. In spatially resolved transcriptomics, delineating higher-order anatomical structures is critical for understanding how cellular organization affects function. However, the reliability of current benchmarks of spatially aware clustering (SAC) methods is undermined by their narrow focus on Visium and brain tissue datasets and the incorrect interpretation of manual annotation as ground truth. Here we present SACCELERATOR, a community-driven, extensible framework that standardizes data formatting, method integration and metric evaluation, enabling rapid inclusion of new methods and datasets. Our analysis revealed substantial limitations in the generalizability and reproducibility of SAC methods and shows that anatomical labels commonly used as ground truths are often biased, error prone and unsuitable for benchmarking. Rather than ranking methods, we propose a consensus-guided workflow where descriptive spatial metrics highlight high-entropy regions of method disagreement, enabling targeted feedback for tissue experts. Applied to brain and cancer datasets, this approach uncovered biologically meaningful patterns overlooked by individual SAC methods and manual annotations, highlighting the need for iterative, expert-in-the-loop evaluation.
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.