Segmentation Matters: Recognizing the Cell Segmentation Challenge in Spatial Transcriptomics

preprint OA: closed
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

Probe-based in situ hybridization spatial transcriptomics has emerged as a state-of-the-art for neuroscience research. Accurate segmentation of neurons and non-neuronal cells, a critical step for downstream analysis, remains a big challenge. Using human sensory ganglia neurons as an example, we systematically explore this problem. We evaluated multiple automatic segmentation approaches using quantitative performance metrics and downstream results. We show that careful parameter tuning is essential for achieving accurate segmentation; however, even with optimized parameters, different models still yield distinct classes of errors. To mitigate these errors, we propose a manual quality check, which can validate and refine automated segmentation results. As a future direction, integrating multi-modal imaging data with tailored neural networks may further improve segmentation accuracy. In summary, our results argue that each automated segmentation method has distinct strengths, weaknesses, and characteristic error patterns; and that a manual review is necessary.
Full text 1,160 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
Abstract Probe-based in situ hybridization spatial transcriptomics has emerged as a state-of-the-art for neuroscience research. Accurate segmentation of neurons and non-neuronal cells, a critical step for downstream analysis, remains a big challenge. Using human sensory ganglia neurons as an example, we systematically explore this problem. We evaluated multiple automatic segmentation approaches using quantitative performance metrics and downstream results. We show that careful parameter tuning is essential for achieving accurate segmentation; however, even with optimized parameters, different models still yield distinct classes of errors. To mitigate these errors, we propose a manual quality check, which can validate and refine automated segmentation results. As a future direction, integrating multi-modal imaging data with tailored neural networks may further improve segmentation accuracy. In summary, our results argue that each automated segmentation method has distinct strengths, weaknesses, and characteristic error patterns; and that a manual review is necessary. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00