MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416943551 · doi:10.1038/s41587-025-02811-9

Standardized metrics for assessment and reproducibility of imaging-based spatial transcriptomics datasets

2025· article· en· W4416943551 on OpenAlexaff
Jasmine Plummer, Felipe Segato Dezem, David P. Cook, Jiwoon Park, Luke Zhang, Yutian Liu, Maycon Marção, Hannah DuBose, Wani Arjumand, Kellie Wise, Michael J. Roach, Kate Harvey, Taopeng Wang, Kirk B. Jensen, Natalia S. Morosini, Roberto De Gregorio, Alicia Alonso, Shauna L Houlihan, Robert E. Schwartz, Erika Hissong, Catherine Snopkowski, Jeffrey L. Wrana, Natalie K. Ryan, Lisa M. Butler, Alexander Swarbrick, Christopher E. Mason, Luciano G. Martelotto

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Biotechnology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOttawa HospitalLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpatial analysisAnnotationImputation (statistics)Data collectionReproducibilityData type

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spatial transcriptomics lacks standardized metrics for evaluating imaging-based in situ hybridization technologies across sites. In this study, we generated the Spatial Touchstone (ST) dataset from six tissue types across several global sites with centralized sectioning, analyzed on both Xenium and CosMx platforms. These platforms were selected for their widespread use and distinct chemistries. We assessed reproducibility, sensitivity, dynamic ranges, signal-to-noise ratio, false discovery rates, cell type annotation and congruence with single-cell profiling. This study offers ST standardized operating procedures (STSOPs) and an open-source software, SpatialQM, enabling evaluation of samples across all technical metrics and direct imputation of cell annotations. The generated imaging-based spatial transcriptomics data repository comprises 254 spatial profiles, incorporating both public and newly generated ST datasets in a web-based application, which enables analysis and comparison of user data against an extensive collection of imaging-based datasets. Finally, we establish best practices and metrics to evaluate and integrate imaging-based multi-omics data from single cells into spatial transcriptomics to spatial proteomics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.155
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.155
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainReproducibility
GenreMethods

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

Citations17
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueNature BiotechnologySame topicSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomicsFrench-language works237,207