ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2026
Toward next-generation machine learning and deep learning for spatial omics.
Review in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Epigenetic regulation of metabolism in Saccharomyces cerevisiae: mechanisms, metabolic crosstalk, and engineering applications.Molecular biology reports · 2026Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Spatial omics technologies generate high-dimensional, spatially resolved molecular data across transcripts, proteins, metabolites and lipids, requiring computational models that account for tissue topology, multi-scale organization, and experimental noise. Although machine-learning (ML) and deep-learning (DL) methods have rapidly proliferated to meet these demands, the field still lacks clear methodological guidance for selecting models adapted to specific spatial constraints and biological questions. Here, we provide a critical and comparative synthesis of ML/DL approaches across core spatial omics tasks, including batch-effect correction, resolution enhancement, tissue and cell segmentation, spatial domain discovery, cell-type deconvolution, and model interpretability. Classical ML methods such as clustering, random forests, and other ensemble classifiers, offer interpretable baselines but are limited in their capacity to model non-linear spatial dependencies. Modern DL architectures, including convolutional and graph neural networks, transformers and generative models, capture complex spatial patterns and support multi-omics integration, yet face persistent challenges related to data scarcity, annotation burden, computational cost, and uncertainty estimation. Emerging strategies such as optimal transport, cross-modal attention, graph-linked embeddings, and foundation models enhance cross-modality alignment but require rigorous evaluation of their assumptions and operational constraints. We further discuss practical solutions, including self-supervised pretraining, federated learning and the adoption of standardized spatial data formats, to enhance scalability, reproducibility, and clinical readiness. Finally, we propose a decision framework that highlights when specific ML/DL families are most suitable according to data modality, spatial resolution, tissue architecture, and intended clinical application. By integrating methodological critique with actionable recommendations, this review offers a roadmap for the reproducible, interpretable, and clinically translatable deployment of ML and DL models in spatial omics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.