A quantitative spatial cell-cell colocalizations framework enabling comparisons between in vitro assembloids and pathological specimens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spatial omics is enabling unprecedented tissue characterization, but the ability to adequately compare spatial features across samples under different conditions is lacking. We propose a quantitative framework that catalogs significant, normalized, colocalizations between pairs of cell subpopulations, enabling comparisons among a variety of biological samples. We perform cell-pair colocalization analysis on multiplexed immunofluorescence images of assembloids constructed with lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) organoids and cancer-associated fibroblasts derived from human tumors. Our data show that assembloids recapitulate human LUAD tumor-stroma spatial organization, justifying their use as a tool for investigating the spatial biology of human disease. Intriguingly, drug-perturbation studies identify drug-induced spatial rearrangements that also appear in treatment-naïve human tumor samples, suggesting potential directions for characterizing spatial (re)-organization related to drug resistance. Moreover, our work provides an opportunity to quantify spatial data across different samples, with the common goal of building catalogs of spatial features associated with disease processes and drug response. Comparing spatial omics data across samples remains elusive. Here, the authors develop a quantitative spatial framework, termed as colocatome analysis, by combining pairwise cell-cell colocalization, spatial permutation and normalization approaches for comparing features across conditions and studies.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".