The problem. The founding spatial methods (Visium, the first imaging assays) are what most tutorials teach, but the technology has moved fast. This review is the 2025 snapshot of the platform side — the assays themselves, not just the analysis.

The idea. It surveys spatial omics across modalities and resolutions: sequencing-based capture (spot arrays like Visium and higher-resolution successors) versus imaging-based in-situ methods (Xenium, MERSCOPE, CosMx) that resolve individual transcripts and cells, plus the expansion beyond transcriptomics toward spatial proteomics and multi-omics. For each family it lays out the resolution/throughput/panel-size trade-offs — the axes you actually weigh when choosing an assay for a given tissue and question.

Why it matters. Keeping the assay mental model current is table stakes for the spatial track: the choice of platform upstream constrains every analysis decision downstream (spot deconvolution vs. cell segmentation, targeted panel vs. whole-transcriptome). Reading a fresh technology review is how I make sure my instincts aren’t anchored on the 2016–2020 canon while a core facility is arguing about 2025 hardware.

Verdict. A review, so I read it for coverage rather than a claim to test — and technology reviews date quickly, so its half-life is short by design. But that’s exactly why it’s useful now: a short “what’s new” explainer that keeps the platform vocabulary fresh. Pair it with the head-to-head benchmarks, which put numbers on the trade-offs this review describes qualitatively.