Answering open questions in biology using spatial genomics and structured methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genomics methods have uncovered patterns in a range of biological systems, but obscure important aspects of cell behavior: the shapes, relative locations, movement, and interactions of cells in space. Spatial technologies that collect genomic or epigenomic data while preserving spatial information have begun to overcome these limitations. These new data promise a deeper understanding of the factors that affect cellular behavior, and in particular the ability to directly test existing theories about cell state and variation in the context of morphology, location, motility, and signaling that could not be tested before. Rapid advancements in resolution, ease-of-use, and scale of spatial genomics technologies to address these questions also require an updated toolkit of statistical methods with which to interrogate these data. We present a framework to respond to this new avenue of research: four open biological questions that can now be answered using spatial genomics data paired with methods for analysis. We outline spatial data modalities for each open question that may yield specific insights, discuss how conflicting theories may be tested by comparing the data to conceptual models of biological behavior, and highlight statistical and machine learning-based tools that may prove particularly helpful to recover biological understanding.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".