ArticleNature methods2026
Benchmarking segmentation methods for spatial transcriptomics.
Article in Nature methods, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cell segmentation is a critical yet under-standardized step in spatial transcriptomics, directly affecting cell identity assignment, spatial organization and downstream biological interpretation. Despite rapid advances in spatial transcriptomics technologies, systematic evaluations of segmentation methods across platforms and biological contexts remain limited. Here we benchmark 11 image-based, transcriptomics-based and multimodal segmentation methods across 15 datasets generated by 5 spatial transcriptomics technologies, spanning 12 human and mouse tissue types. We introduce biologically informed evaluation metrics that quantify segmentation quality, transcript recovery, cell composition, morphology, expression purity and spatial organization. Benchmarking reveals substantial variation in performance across datasets, technologies and evaluation criteria, highlighting trade-offs among segmentation completeness, transcriptomic fidelity and biological interpretability. Cross-technology analyses further demonstrate that segmentation choice critically shapes downstream analyses, including cell-type specificity, transcript contamination and ligand-receptor inference. Together, our unified Nextflow pipeline provides a scalable foundation for standardized evaluation of segmentation and method selection in spatial transcriptomics.
Identifiers
42919952What 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.