🏆 Finalist — NIH Data Sharing Index (“S-Index”) Challenge
Demo corpus. Scores are computed on a select set of biomedical paper/datasets and may be inaccurate for papers outside this corpus — DataRank relies on network effects that improve with scale. We aim to expand this into a fully open resource pending additional funding.

Optimizing Xenium In Situ data utility by quality assessment and best-practice analysis workflows

Nature Methods(2025)10.1038/s41592-025-02617-2Source: DataRank Database

Optimizing Xenium In Situ data utility by quality assessment and best-practice analysis workflows is a dataset published in Nature Methods (2025). On theSindex it has a DataRank of 1.3, placing it in the top 39.3% of the data-sharing corpus. It has been cited 81 times, with 73 citing works in its 1-hop citation network. Its calibrated FAIR score is 50/100.

Top 39%percentile
1.3DataRank
1.3Top 39%
Dataset Open Access81 citations · base score 4.0
Cite:
datarank_citation_only_1hop_v6· scope data_onlyMethodology

Abstract

The Xenium In Situ platform is a new spatial transcriptomics product commercialized by 10x Genomics, capable of mapping hundreds of genes in situ at subcellular resolution. Given the multitude of commercially available spatial transcriptomics technologies, recommendations in choice of platform and analysis guidelines are increasingly important. Herein, we explore 25 Xenium datasets generated from multiple tissues and species, comparing scalability, resolution, data quality, capacities and limitations with eight other spatially resolved transcriptomics technologies and commercial platforms. In addition, we benchmark the performance of multiple open-source computational tools, when applied to Xenium datasets, in tasks including preprocessing, cell segmentation, selection of spatially variable features and domain identification. This study serves as an independent analysis of the performance of Xenium, and provides best practices and recommendations for analysis of such datasets.

Data sources & pipeline
Pipeline:MetadataData-paper checkEnrichmentCitation networkScoring
Enrichment:Pending

FAIR Checklist

Context only (not used in score)
Findable (1/2)
  • Has DOI
Accessible (1/2)
  • Open Access
Interoperable (0/2)
    Reusable (1/3)
    • Dataset classification

    FAIR checklist signals are shown for context only and do not affect DataRank scoring.

    50FAIR score
    F Findable
    53
    A Accessible
    80
    I Interoperable
    25
    R Reusable
    42
    Top 22% by FAIRLLM-assessed✓ full text read

    Calibrated FAIR score — a parallel quality metric, independent of the DataRank citation score. See the full evaluation →

    DataRank Breakdown

    Base Score 45%Citation Network 55%

    Base Score Contribution

    0.601

    From this paper's citation signal

    Citation Network Contribution

    0.727

    From 38 citing papers with measurable signal

    Learn more about DataRank methodology →

    Top 5 citers driving the network score

    Ranked by citation count — the same ordering the engine uses when summing log1p(Cq) over citers.

    Why this DataRank?

    DataRank blends this paper's own citation count with the influence of the papers that cite it. Here, roughly 45% comes from its base citations and 55% from the citation network (38 citing papers contributed measurable signal).

    Base score B(p)
    log1p(citation_count) — grows sub-linearly, so a paper with 1,000 citations is not 10× a paper with 100.
    Network N(p)
    Σ over citers of log1p(Cq) ÷ max(outdegreeq, 1). Being cited by a highly-cited paper with few references counts most.
    Damping factor d = 0.85
    DataRank = (1−d)·B(p) + d·N(p) — the two cards above are each already multiplied by their share.
    Self-citations excluded
    Citers sharing any OpenAlex author ID with this paper are filtered out before the network sum.

    Citers are pulled from OpenAlex sorted by cited_by_count:descand capped per paper, so when the cap binds we keep the highest-signal references and the score is reproducible across reruns.

    Read the full methodology →

    Click a node to highlight its connections. Use scroll to zoom. Drag to pan.

    Node colors:CenterData PaperData + Open AccessNon-dataSelected & links| Node size = percentile rank

    Authors (21)

    Louis Benedikt KuemmerleORCID,Christoffer Mattsson-Langseth,Sebastian Tismeyer,Christophe AvenelORCID,Kuan-lin HuangORCID