A Comparative Analysis of Imaging-Based Spatial Transcriptomics Platforms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Spatial transcriptomics is a rapidly evolving field, overwhelmed by a multitude of technologies. This study aims to offer a comparative analysis of datasets generated from leading in situ imaging platforms. We have generated spatial transcriptomics data from serial sections of prostate adenocarcinoma using the 10x Genomics Xenium and NanoString CosMx SMI platforms. Additionally, orthogonal single-nucleus RNA sequencing (snRNA-seq) was performed on the same FFPE tissue to establish a reference for the tumor’s transcriptional profiles. We assessed various technical aspects, such as reproducibility, sensitivity, dynamic range, cell segmentation, cell type annotation, and congruence with single-cell profiling. The practicality of assessing cellular organization and biomarker localization was evaluated. Although fewer genes are measured (CosMx: 960, Xenium: 377, with an overlap of 125), Xenium consistently demonstrates higher sensitivity, a broader dynamic range, and better alignment with single-cell reference profiles. Conversely, CosMx’s out-of-the-box segmentation outperformed Xenium’s, resulting in noticeable transcript misassignment in Xenium within certain tissue areas. However, the impact of this on the cells’ transcriptional profile was minimal. Together, this comprehensive comparison of two leading commercial platforms for spatial transcriptomics provides essential metrics for assessing their performance, offering invaluable insights for future research and technological advancements in this dynamic field.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".