MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416415403 · doi:10.1097/bor.0000000000001140

Spatial transcriptomics: challenges and future directions in musculoskeletal diseases

2025· article· en· W4416415403 on OpenAlexaff
Keemo Delos Santos, Jason S. Rockel, Mohit Kapoor

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Rheumatology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsField (mathematics)TranscriptomeMEDLINEEmerging technologiesSpatial analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review examines recent advancements in spatial transcriptomics and its current and potential use to advance musculoskeletal (MSK) research. These insights will be vital to address the complexity of MSK diseases and will pave the way for future therapeutic developments. RECENT FINDINGS: The advent of next-generation sequencing has significantly improved our understanding of the cellular and transcriptomic heterogeneity in the MSK system. Spatial transcriptomics has revolutionized research allowing in-situ gene expression analyses directly from intact histological sections. Understanding spatial transcriptomes of cells within tissues will shed light into the biological complexity of MSK diseases. Here, we summarize the role of spatial transcriptomics in unveiling molecular mechanisms underlying MSK diseases and the challenges prohibiting its widespread application in MSK research, and opportunities to overcome these challenges. SUMMARY: We provide a summary of emerging techniques in spatial transcriptomic field and its use in advancing MSK research. Furthermore, challenges in its application in MSK tissues are discussed as well as potential future considerations to improve spatial transcriptomics insights.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.561
Threshold uncertainty score0.706

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in RheumatologySame topicSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomicsFrench-language works237,207