ArticleNature communications2026
Benchmarking copy number alteration inference methods for spatial transcriptomics.
Article in Nature communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Benchmarking copy number alteration inference methods for spatial transcriptomics.Nature communications · 2026Article
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
Copy number alterations (CNAs), gains or losses of genomic regions, contribute to malignant progression and tumor heterogeneity. Advances in spatial transcriptomics have expanded opportunities to study clonal structure in situ, but direct spatial genomic profiling remains difficult in practice, motivating the increasing use of computational methods to infer CNAs from spatial transcriptomics data. However, their performance across diverse spatial transcriptomics settings remains unclear. Here, we present a benchmark of nine CNA inference methods across 69 spatial transcriptomics tissue sections from six cancer types and four spatial transcriptomics platforms. By evaluating these methods across four key tasks, we show that no single method consistently outperforms all others, with performance depending on the analytical goal and data characteristics. We therefore provide task-specific and data-aware guidance to help users select appropriate methods in practical settings. More broadly, this benchmark provides a basis for the future development and optimization of CNA inference methods.
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.