Good afternoon, thank you for attending today's NanoString Q1 Operating Results call. My name is Jason, and I'll be the moderator for today's call. All lines will be muted during the presentation portion of the call with an opportunity for questions and answers at the end. If you'd like to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone keypad. I'd now like to pass the call over to our host, Doug Farrell. Thank you, operator. Welcome, everyone. Joining me on the call today is Brad Gray, our President and CEO, and Tom Bailey, our CFO. Earlier today, we released our financial results for the Q1 ended March 31st, 2023. During this call, we may make statements that are forward-looking, including statements about financial and operating projections, future business growth, trends and related factors, expectations regarding future operating results, cash flows, current and future instrument orders, and our manufacturing capacity, as well as prospects for expanding and penetrating our addressable markets, our strategic focus and objectives, as well as the development status and anticipated success of recent product offerings and the impact of macroeconomic factors. Forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties, including those described in our SEC filings. Our results may differ materially from those projected, and we undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statements. Later in the call, Tom will be discussing our Q1 financial results and guidance for 2023. We have prepared, as a supplement to GAAP financial measures, selected non-GAAP adjusted measures, the calculation of which are described in detail in our press release. Throughout the call, all financial measures will be GAAP unless otherwise noted. You can find the reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP measures as well as a description, limitations and the rationale for using each measure in this afternoon's press release. To aid analysts and investors in building their models, we have posted exhibits under the Financial Information tab of our Investor Relations homepage that include a presentation of our non-GAAP or adjusted measures and selected other financial data. I'd like to remind everybody that we will be attending the Jefferies Conference in New York City next month. We look forward to having the opportunity to meet with many of you then. I'd now like to turn the call over to Brad. Good afternoon, thank you for joining us today. I am excited to report that 2023 is off to a strong start. We drove continued momentum in the business with revenue from both spatial biology and nCounter exceeding the guidance we provided on our year-end call. With strong spatial biology demand and the successful scale-up of our CosMx manufacturing and installation capacity, we are raising our revenue outlook for the year. Before Tom provides details on these financial results and improved outlook later in the call, I'll provide updates on our progress to our strategic objectives for the year. Our first objective for 2023 is to increase our penetration of the spatial biology market. During the Q1, the spatial biology demand was healthy across both instruments and consumables. Our overall spatial biology revenue increased by more than 75% over Q1 of last year. We ended the Q1 with an installed base of 385 spatial systems, an increase of about 31% over the prior year. Our CosMx Spatial Molecular Imager remains the primary growth driver of the business as we further penetrate the rapidly growing market for single-cell spatial biology. Our rollout of CosMx is tracking ahead of plan. We are ramping our manufacturing capacity and refining the processes that our field service engineers and application scientists use to install CosMx systems and train users. We believe these efforts will accelerate uptake of CosMx consumables, which are the growth engine of the company over the long term. Even with our increased pace of CosMx shipments, strong demand led CosMx instrument orders to exceed shipments in Q1, growing our backlog. About 75% of our CosMx orders came from new customers, and biopharma customers increased to about 25% of system orders. Oncology applications drove about 70% of the orders, followed by immunology and neuroscience. In February, we unveiled our consumable roadmap for CosMx. We've demonstrated our ability to scale the number of biological targets imaged by CosMx, which is referred to as its plex, up to 6,000 RNAs and 120 proteins, more than 10x the content that any competing platform currently offers. Our substantial advantage in plex has resonated with our customers as an important factor in why we believe CosMx will remain a market-leading spatial imager. In parallel to ramping up CosMx shipments, we've been connecting customers to our AtoMx spatial informatics platform. AtoMx provides seamless and highly scalable storage and compute power for a fraction of the upfront cost of on-site capabilities, making the decision to move data to the cloud an easy one. Customers value the investment we've made to ensure that informatics does not become a bottleneck in spatial biology research and are excited to leverage the cloud to co-collaboratively analyze the massive data sets that spatial biology experiments generate. While instrument demand remains CosMx-heavy in Q1, GeoMx placements continued, and our expanded GeoMx installed base drove a meaningful increase in consumable revenue. The speed with which new GeoMx sites became active consumable customers improved from Q4. We expect to see that trend continue over the balance of the year. In parallel, we're releasing software updates that improve the capabilities and workflow of GeoMx, including a recent update that enables customers to measure RNA and proteins simultaneously on the same slide, an appealing capability that helps scientists increase the insights that they extract from each sample. Translational researchers remain the primary users of GeoMx, as illustrated by the latest paper to grace the cover of the journal Cancer Research. A team of researchers at the University of Glasgow published a study that used GeoMx to evaluate and subgroup colorectal cancer patients whose cancer has metastasized to their liver. The study demonstrated the ability of GeoMx to characterize tumor heterogeneity and identify novel biomarkers associated with clinically relevant subtypes of colorectal cancer. We recently caught up with the authors of this paper at the American Association for Cancer Research, or AACR, annual meeting, where spatial biology featured prominently in the scientific agenda. Our customers had strong showings with nearly 60 abstracts for GeoMx and CosMx, an increase of more than 40% over the prior year. Our booth was buzzing with activity and customer interest throughout the meeting, and lead generation at this year's AACR more than doubled over the prior year. Customer interactions like these are expanding our instrument funnel and providing visibility to our growth outlook and continued leadership in this dynamic field. Our second objective is to deliver predictable revenue growth. We clearly achieved this goal during Q1 as revenue for both spatial biology and nCounter exceeded our guidance for the quarter. In addition, our revenue visibility is continuing to improve, which bodes well for our ability to deliver predictable revenue through the balance of 2023 and beyond. The recurring consumable revenue streams generated by our installed base of more than 1,500 instruments grew both sequentially and year-on-year, with consumable pull-through in line with expectations. This helped our nCounter business, which has a revenue mix that is now more than 90% consumables, deliver results above the high end of our guidance even as instrument placements slowed. We also grew CosMx instrument order backlog while scaling up our manufacturing and install capacity. Since CosMx instrument revenue is the primary growth driver of 2023, these results drive incremental revenue visibility. With CosMx demand strong and scale-up on track, we expect the quarterly cadence of shipments and installs to increase as the year progresses, we are in a position to raise our guidance for the year. Given the strong demand, we expect many of the CosMx instrument orders we receive in the coming quarters will remain in backlog as we exit the year, maintaining our high revenue visibility as we enter 2024. Our third strategic objective is to demonstrate progress towards cash flow breakeven. The team remains laser-focused on accelerating our path to profitability. During Q1, our adjusted operating expenses were down $2 million year-on-year. This OpEx reduction offset lower gross margins and kept our EBITDA approximately flat year-on-year during the Q1. We expect our bottom line to improve each quarter through the balance of the year as our revenue growth accelerates with CosMx shipments. We exited Q1 with approximately $155 million in cash equivalents, and short-term investments on hand and believe that we are well positioned to manage our business to profitable growth with our current resources. Now I'd like to turn the call over to Tom to review the details of our financial results and provide an update on our financial outlook for the year. Thanks, Brad, and thanks, all, for joining us today. For the Q1 of 2023, total revenue was $35.8 million, $1.8 million above the upper end of our Q1 guidance range and about $3 million above Q1 consensus estimates. For our spatial biology business, Q1 revenue was $17.1 million, approximately 77% year-over-year growth, $1.1 million above the upper end of our guidance range and about $2 million above consensus estimates. Spatial instrument revenue was $10.1 million, approximately 110% year-over-year growth, reflecting acceleration of CosMx shipments. We shipped 47 spatial instruments to customers in Q1 with an average realized selling price of about $215,000. Q1 ASP reflects a heavier mix of international GeoMx shipments and also the deferral of a portion of CosMx revenue that will be recognized in future periods as service revenue as customers use initial amounts of AtoMx Compute and data storage included with each CosMx sale. We installed about 35 spatial instruments during Q1, growing our spatial instrument installed base to approximately 385 instruments. Spatial biology consumables revenue was $7 million, approximately 44% year-over-year growth that are reflecting in-line GeoMx consumable sales over our growing installed base and continued initial shipments of CosMx consumables. Q1 nCounter revenue, which includes all service, was $18.7 million, about $1 million above the upper end of our Q1 guidance range and consensus estimates. nCounter instrument revenue was $1.2 million, consumables revenue was $12.8 million, and service revenue was $4.7 million. At the end of Q1, our nCounter installed base was approximately 1,130 instruments, with about 10 instruments installed during the quarter. Turning to margins and expenses, I'll provide results on a non-GAAP or adjusted basis, which removes the impact of stock-based compensation, depreciation, amortization, and certain one-time items. Please refer to our press release as well as the exhibits we have posted to our investor relations webpage for detailed information on how our non-GAAP or adjusted measures are prepared. Q1 adjusted gross margin was 43%, impacted by revenue mix more heavily weighted to CosMx instruments, which are currently selling at lower gross margins due to higher unit production costs that are expected to be incurred in future periods as we scale CosMx production. We also continued in Q1 to make investments to expand our service and manufacturing capacity. We incurred increased cloud compute costs associated with our AtoMx platform. Lastly, in accordance with internal policies, we recorded a larger-than-usual Q1 inventory reserve of just over $1 million that impacted Q1 gross margins by about three percentage points. This reserve is primarily related to our spatial biology consumable sales mix shifting away from our more targeted consumable panels and toward our GeoMx whole transcriptome assay and other newer spatial biology consumable products. Adjusted R&D expense was $12.7 million, a decrease of 15% year-over-year. Primarily driven by lower personnel and product development costs related to CosMx and AtoMx. Adjusted SG&A expense was $29.8 million, an increase of 1% year-over-year, reflecting lower personnel costs offset by Q1 trade show and other marketing-related expenses that are higher in the Q1 as compared to subsequent quarters throughout the year. Our adjusted EBITDA loss was $27.2 million. Our cash equivalents and short-term investments were $154.6 million as of March 31st, 2023. As noted on our last call, we expect cash burn and EBITDA loss to be heaviest in the first half of the year as we make investments in working capital to support the significant ramp in CosMx shipments and given other cash expenses such as audit fees, trade show expenses, and corporate bonuses that are incurred in the Q1. Turning to guidance, for the Q2, we expect revenue to be in the range of $40 million-$42 million. This range includes $23 million-$24 million of spatial biology revenue, representing a more than doubling of spatial revenue year-over-year and $17 million-$18 million of nCounter and service revenue. For the full year, we are raising our revenue guidance range, reflecting our Q1 results and the expected ramp of CosMx shipments in Q2. We now expect our full year total revenue to be in the range of $175 million-$185 million, as compared to the previous range of $170 million-$180 million. Our updated range includes spatial biology revenue of $100 million-$105 million, as compared to the previous range of $95 million-$100 million, and nCounter revenue, which includes all of service and other revenue of $75 million-$80 million, unchanged as compared to the previous range. We continue to expect adjusted EBITDA loss to range from $65 million-$75 million, unchanged from our previous guidance, with EBITDA loss and cash flow improvements still expected to be more substantive in the second half of the year as our spatial biology revenue grows on a reduced operating expense base. We also continue to expect adjusted gross margins will be temporarily lower in 2023 in the 45%-50% range as our revenue mix shifts towards CosMx instruments. We're improving in 2024 and beyond as these systems begin to pull through higher-margin consumables. Now, I'll turn the call back over to Brad for our closing comments. Thanks, Tom. In closing, we feel great about our strong start to 2023. Momentum in our spatial business is building as demand for CosMx is being driven by its market-leading capabilities. Our revenue visibility is increasing on stable consumable pull-through and increasing CosMx backlog. We're well-positioned to generate strong 2023 revenue growth while reducing operating expenses, allowing us to make continued progress towards profitability. With that, I'll open the line for your questions. If you would like to ask a question, it is star one on your telephone keypad. If for any reason you'd like to remove that question, please press star followed by two. Once again, to ask a question, it is star one. Our first question is from John Sourbeer with UBS. Your line is now open. Hi. Thanks for taking the question and congrats on the quarter. Just maybe starting off on CosMx. You know, it sounds like that the, you know, the backlog there is still above that $40 million on a, on a net basis. Just any color on, you know, the trajectory of shipments there and how you see that through the year and when you think you're gonna burn through that backlog? Sure. Thanks for joining the call, John. Yeah, CosMx scale up of manufacturing and our installation and training capacity is going just ahead of our plan. As implicit in Tom's guidance for Q2, we do expect a major step up in the number of instrument ships in the Q2. Then we would expect to, you know, remain at about that same pace of shipments through the balance of the year. You know, If you look at our increase in our guidance range for the year, we're really, you know, increasing the range of spatial instruments that we plan to ship from the previous guidance of 280-300 systems to be about at the top end or about 300 systems by the end of the year. And that's, you know, that means that we already have two-thirds of the remaining systems that we expect to ship in 2023 in our backlog. We have really great revenue visibility at this point in time. You know, for new customers who are coming to us today and putting in CosMx orders, I think there's some chance that they would get their instrument by the end of the year. More likely than not, you know, we're going to begin pushing new orders into the Q1 of 2024. Appreciate that. You know, you raised the revenue guidance but maintained the EBITDA loss for the year. Just any additional color you can provide on the cadence of that OpEx burn maybe into the Q2 and remainder of the year? Sure, John. I think that the reason we maintained our EBITDA guidance was because gross margin was a little bit lower in the Q1 than we expected due to some of the costs that we're incurring to ramp CosMx manufacturing. We decided to take a conservative approach to raise the revenue guidance while leaving the EBITDA guidance the same. Underpinning that is our OpEx guidance is really unchanged. We still expect OpEx to be down year-over-year. What that translates into is you'll see a pretty significant second half improvement in both EBITDA and in cash burn as we ramp our CosMx shipments over that reduced operating expense base and as our manufacturing gets more efficient as we make more instruments throughout the year. Thanks, Tom. You know, last one on my end. Just any color on just cash burn, you know, any change in your outlook there? Do you still plan to get to break even on the existing cash, you know, through 2024? Or do you think you need to raise potentially next year with that convert coming due in 2025? Our plans are still to get to cash flow break even on our existing resources, and we think that our internal plans indicate that we can get there. As we've mentioned before on the convert, you know, we're aware of the maturity coming in 2025, but given the trajectory of our business, we feel like we'll have a menu of options to consider. We'll do those prudently, in a timeframe that would be usual and typical for managing those types of liabilities on the balance sheets. We still feel really good about where the balance sheet is given the trajectory of the business. Got it. Thanks for taking the questions. Our next question is from Kyle Mikson with Canaccord Genuity. Your line is now open. Hi, this is Alex Jakes. I'm on for Kyle Mikson. Congratulations on the quarter, guys. Quick question about CosMx consumables. What should we be expecting over the course of the year in terms of cadence of pull-throughs for CosMx? Could it be lumpy in the first few quarters, or do you kind of expect things to grow at a relatively linear-ish rate in the beginning? Thanks. Thanks, Alex. Yeah, CosMx consumables will be a relatively small contributor to our growth in 2023. You know, as we place the new systems, we do expect people to take some time before they ramp up to full utilization. Every quarter I would expect to see some sequential growth in CosMx consumables, but as a fraction of our overall spatial consumables, it's a relatively small piece. I do not expect, you know, lumpiness in terms of unpredictability, but I do expect it to be, you know, small and growing sequentially throughout the year. Got it. Thank you. You also said that roughly 25% of new orders came from biopharma. We have been seeing that some other companies, have seen that, biopharma spending, could have been possibly constrained in recent months. I was just curious if you had any commentary on this. Thanks. We've really defined biopharma into two separate subsegments. You have the large pharma companies who still remain relatively well-financed and whose R&D operations are continuing at full pace. I would say that most of the incremental demand we see for spatial biology is from those larger companies. In contrast, small biotechs who maybe had enjoyed, you know, very inexpensive capital in the last several years, are now operating at a much higher cost of capital and are being much more careful with deployment of that capital into new instruments or even the pace of experimentation that's not on the critical path to a clinical trial result. That portion of the biopharma market has clearly slowed down and has remained slow through the Q1. You know, fortunately for us, the large biopharma is large enough to continue to drive incremental interest. You know, on the spatial biology side, where CosMx initially appealed primarily to academic researchers who were focused on discovery research and were probably following up on single-cell experiments they'd done in a non-spatial manner, we're starting to see biopharma interest in that technology. Great. Thank you. Our next question is from Dan Arias with Stifel. Your line is now open. Hey, guys. Thanks. This is actually Evan Stampler on for Dan. I guess, circling back to CosMx, obviously, you know, the instrument's been in the hands of your customers now for a little bit. You know, it'd just be, you know, good to hear like, you know, what kind of feedback you're hearing from them. Maybe just if you have an idea of maybe a timeline for first publications getting out there because, you know, when we talk to people, it does seem like some people are just kind of waiting to see data. I know you know, you obviously have some stuff with the TAP program, but if you have any sense of when publication might come out, that we should be on the lookout for, that'd be helpful. In your prepared remarks, you did talk about ASPs being at $215, I kind of missed the other portion of that as to why. I'm getting, if I just do the rough math in terms of instrument revenue for spatial divided by the instruments, I'm getting a much higher number, I think you tried to explain that. If you could just repeat that'd be helpful. Sure. I'll cover the first two portions, then I'll let Tom cover the piece on the ASP. Feedback on CosMx has been extremely positive. You know, many of the initial CosMx shipments went to customers who already had GeoMx, and so they were able to very directly contrast their experience in being having their CosMx installed and their training to what they experienced with GeoMx. I think the sense is that it's gone much more smoothly and that CosMx is actually an easier to use and easier to learn system than GeoMx was. That's largely because, you know, CosMx does not need a region of interest selection, but rather can typically scan the whole slide. Feedback's been very positive so far. It's early days for those customers. That being said, our Technology Access Program and our data sets that we put out in the public domain are already beginning to yield peer-reviewed papers. There are nine peer-reviewed papers that have been published so far, most of them published on data that we posted, you know, for free of charge for researchers to play with, and to get to understand CosMx data sets. We have at least 18 peer-reviewed papers that have been submitted for publication, most of those coming out of our Technology Access Program. Our Technology Access Program has now completed 140 CosMx products, projects rather. You know, we think there'll be a really nice stream of peer-reviewed papers coming out of our technology access program, and that'll help the community really see more of what CosMx is capable of and gain the confidence to adopt. Tom, do you want to take the question on ASPs? Yeah. Yes, yes. Evan, just as a reminder, we recognize revenue on instruments when we ship instruments to customers. Sometimes there's some confusion that folks have when they look at the increase in our installed base compared to the instruments we ship, 'cause those two numbers tend to be different because we're installing on a lag. In my prepared remarks, I mentioned we shipped 47 spatial instruments during the quarter. If you take the $10.1 million of revenue that we mentioned we got from spatial instruments during the quarter and divide that by those 47 shipped units, that gets you to your ASP for the Q1 of $215 that I mentioned in the prepared remarks. Gotcha. Super helpful. A follow-up. You know, you did talk about a lot of the initial placements for CosMx being with GeoMx, or, you know, existing GeoMx customers. In the past you have talked about bundling and the opportunity set there. I'm just kind of curious, like when you go to a customer and you present like a new customer that hasn't used GeoMx and you say, "All right, well, if you..." You know, you present them with the bundle opportunity, and the customers actually say, "No, I'm good. I just want a CosMx." Like, what are the kind of biggest things that they're telling you that as to why they're choosing the individual instrument versus getting the two together? Well, thanks for the question. You know, CosMx and GeoMx are both geared towards different types of experiments. CosMx is an ideal system for following up traditional non-spatial single-cell experiments, you know, that may have taken place in the past based on droplet-based approaches. Many customers have been doing that type of science and have identified different cell types that are within a tissue, but they don't know where those cell types are. CosMx is an ideal system for following up on single cell and determining the location of the rare cell types and how they're interacting with other cells. That is a very easy type of experiment for many discovery researchers to imagine, and that's part of what's driven our mix shift from GeoMx towards CosMx over the last 12 months. GeoMx, in contrast, is a high throughput system that has the advantage of being able to look at the whole transcriptome across multicellular regions of interest. It's best employed in biomarker research that compares gene expression over a large number of samples. That is appealing towards translational researchers who are really hunting for predictive biomarkers. When our sales reps walk into an account, they try to understand the science that that scientist is, or that lab is doing and match them to one system or the other. Some labs. We think in the long term, most labs will have utility for both types of systems, but very few have the capital available to purchase both at the same time. Those situations where a lab is well-funded and they have tremendous demand and are scaling up their spatial capabilities very quickly, those are the situations where we can successfully sell bundles. The other situations would be, you know, we would sell a CosMx first, then hope to come back and sell a GeoMx later, in a future funding period or vice versa. Gotcha. That makes sense. If I can just follow it up with just one kind of modeling question. I know you Now you're talking about a segment, just spatial combining GeoMx and CosMx. Is there anything you guys can just give us some, a breakdown between those two, whether it's placements, ASP pull-through or whatever? that's my last question. Thanks. Yeah. Thanks for the question. You know, the good news for the simplification of modeling is that the ASPs and the pull-through are expected to be very similar for GeoMx and CosMx. You know, to simplify matters both in terms of our reporting and in terms of your modeling, we've chosen to simply report spatial instruments and spatial consumables. But as, you know, as Tom indicated, the average ASP across the mix is $215,000 in Q1, which is not that far off from where it has been when we were only recognizing GeoMx. If you do the calculations on the pull-through, it was right around the same consumable pull-through on an annualized basis as GeoMx has been over the past year. I think it was about $80,000 consumable pull-through for spatial instruments in Q1, which is similar to the $75,000 or so that we were doing last year. Just to keep things simple, we're reporting spatial instruments and overall spatial consumables, and I don't think you should need to model those separately this time. I'm sorry, I'm just. Just as one quick follow-up. I'm looking at the at the presentation. Spatial pull-through is $66,000, not $80,000 which was, I guess, down. I'm not sure what section of the presentation you're looking at. If you do, just to do the math-. It's page seven. Well. That is probably something we could hit in the after call as a point of detail. All right. Yeah. right. Yeah. If you just... Yeah, if you do the $7 million of revenue divided by the installed base at the end of 2022, which would be 350, that gets you to about the $80,000 number that Brad had mentioned. Okay, cool. Thanks. Our next question comes from Dan Brennan with TD Cowen. Your line is now open. Hey, good afternoon. This is Kyle on for Dan. Thanks for taking the questions. I just wanted to ask a question about shipments versus installs. You said you shipped 47 spatial instruments, installed 35. I think there were some leftover uninstalled spatial instruments actually in Q4, and please correct me if I'm wrong. You know, pretty wide difference there. Is there any, is there any capacity constraint within each quarter for, you know, the maximum number of these boxes that you can install? Maybe just start there. Thank you. Sure. Yeah. There is a capacity constraint on how many instruments we can install. It's a manpower-based capacity constraint. We have been hiring additional field service engineers and field application scientists. We don't believe that constraint is a major challenge at this point in time. Just to remind you, installation requires more than our own capacity. It requires, you know, the cooperation of the customer, and many of them, you know, look to schedule their installations and trainings around their own schedules. That is another determinant for how many instruments are installed in any given quarter. In addition, in situations where the pace of instrument shipment increases throughout the quarter, as was the case in Q1 as we scaled up our CosMx manufacturing, you can often have more instruments that were shipped in the latter weeks of a quarter that naturally remain uninstalled at the end of the quarter. Given our scale-up of manufacturing capacity for CosMx, I would expect that to be the case in Q1 and probably again in Q2. Awesome. At what point is that something that catches up this year, or do you think, you know, much of that will spill over into 2023? I mean, excuse me, 2024. Thank you. You know, I think, probably by the end of this year, we'll be installing and shipping systems at the same pace, as our manufacturing capacity levels off and our installations become more continuous throughout the quarter rather than back-end loaded within the quarter. Got it. Just one more from me. You maintained the nCounter guide. What's the visibility on the pull-through for nCounter for the remainder of the year? How far out is the visibility there? I think, you know, relative to what we were expecting, pull-through was a little bit better. You know, is that business sort of stabilizing here? I think that business is stabilizing. We've made some organizational changes within our consumable sales team, a new leader who's doing quite a good job, and more involvement from our field application specialists in overall consumables, both on the nCounter and on the spatial side. I feel increasingly confident that we'll be able to sustain pull-through, you know, or stabilize pull-through at a, at a decent rate on nCounter. You know, that being said, as you can tell from Tom's guidance for the Q2 where we guided nCounter consumable or nCounter revenue overall to be sequentially flat from Q1, we think of that as a very stable, predictable business at this time, not one we're looking to drive, clearly growth out of at this stage. Awesome. Thank you. Our next question is from Catherine Schulte with Baird. Your line is now open. Hey, everyone. Thanks for the question. This is Tom Peterson on for Catherine. Was just curious, obviously, the demand and backlog on CosMx has been impressive. I'm curious if any updates on what you're seeing within the broader imager category from a competitive standpoint and, you know, to the extent that you can, quantify this, you know, the current backlog, how many instruments would you categorize as, you know, competitive wins or, competitive bids? The spatial imager category is a dynamic one, and I think we are dealing with sophisticated customers who in most cases are going to look at multiple offerings before they choose to purchase a single system. I feel it's quite likely that most of the CosMx systems that we're now taking orders for today are being evaluated alongside spatial imagers from other other vendors. You know, I think we feel really great about our competitive positioning of CosMx. The primary dimension where we distinguish ourselves is on plex, and we think, and many customers agree, that plex is the most important specification because it directly correlates to the amount of information a researcher can get from their precious sample. If we can look at 6,000 RNAs in a sample compared to the 400 or 500 that our competitors can offer, we're providing 10x as much potential data as they are getting out of that same sample. That is really the reason that we've had such a successful track record of winning business on CosMx. Got it. That's helpful. Then, you know, good to hear that the funnel, you know, looks good. The commentary from ACR seems positive. You know, just kind of curious, given some of the comments around cash management, you know, are you seeing any broader lengthenings of instrument sales cycles or changes in customer purchasing behavior that's associated with some of this kind of more constrained capital environment? I don't think we're seeing changes in customer behavior outside of that small biotech segment that I've mentioned earlier, was the most cash constrained. By and large, I think the sales cycles have been similar and, you know, we think it'll be a good year for spatial biology. Got it. Very helpful. Thanks. Our next question is from Julia Qin with JP Morgan. Your line is now open. Hello. Thank you for taking the question. This is Marta on for Julia. I was just wanting to ask, you know, now that you've begun shipping CosMx and have early customers scale up their experiments, could you maybe discuss the similarities and differences in the CosMx versus GeoMx product cycle and ramp? Thank you. Well, it's still pretty early days in terms of seeing what CosMx customer behavior is like, but the easiest thing to contrast is the ramp of orders. You know, throughout 2022, you know, we saw a tremendous flow of new orders for CosMx that outpaced the GeoMx instrument launch by a factor of, I think, two plus. You know, of course, we're in a different state of the market today, where spatial biology is much more well known and well appreciated than it was at the time of our GeoMx launch. You know, the market is being conditioned for excitement about spatial imagers, not just by NanoString, but by several other vendors who are out there aggressively commercializing products. We're really seeing a very much steeper ramp in terms of instrument orders and instrument placement than we did in the GeoMx launch. It's a little early for me to talk about whether the site activation and the pace of actual consumable pull-through utilization is happening faster for CosMx than it did with GeoMx, but we believe it will because the system is actually easier and more intuitive to use than GeoMx. I think honestly, NanoString has learned a lot about how to support customers in experimental design and ramp up through our experience commercializing GeoMx. I have a sense of optimism that CosMx will become productive faster than GeoMx has. Got it. That, that's helpful. Then on nCounter real quick, could you put out more color on the instrument placements? I believe you mentioned 10 during the quarter. What kind of customers are purchasing those? Then what was the number of systems inactivated? I believe previous comments last quarter you mentioned that it's roughly the same number of new placements and activations. Are there any updates to those numbers? Let me start with the types of customers who continue to acquire nCounter. You know, nCounter is a workhorse instrument for researchers who are focused on translational biology. Primarily in the fields of oncology and immunology. The instruments that we sold in the quarter went into those types of laboratories. We don't have tremendous real-time visibility into instrument and activation. You know, it's something we infer from customer behavior over time. I would expect that the pace of new instrument placement and the pace of instrument and activation are about the same at this stage, which is why, you know, our consumable revenue, you know, would be expected to be similar throughout the sequential quarters of this year. You know, the relative amount of active install base is relatively flat as new instrument placements more or less offset those that are inactivated. Thank you. Our next question is from Tejas Savant with Morgan Stanley. Your line is now open. Hey, guys. This is Edmond. Thank you for taking my questions. Brad, you previously mentioned about 7,000 labs in the world that could have both a profiler and an imager. I was just wondering, what% of these labs would you consider early adopters? Are there about 500 of them or more like 1,500 of them? I was just hoping to get a better sense of the composition here as it could potentially impact decision-making timelines, multi-unit purchases, and even consumable pull-throughs. Yeah, it's a good question. You know, I think, and it's a hard one to answer. You know, I'd say the easiest way to think about it perhaps is what fraction of any market would you consider likely to be early adopters. You know, if it were the first 15% or so, that'd be the first 1,000 out of that 7,000 labs, right? Perhaps that's as large as the early adopter segment might be expected to be. If you look at the total installed base, you know, across all the imagers and all the profilers at this point in time, that's probably the group that we have primarily focused on as an industry, you know, so far through the launches of all these systems. You know, NanoString's installed base is, you know, 385 spatial instruments, you know, slightly fewer than 385 total laboratories. You know, that's largely within that early adopter sector. You know, these revolutions in life, single cell biology and spatial biology, they play out over the course of a decade. Even just a few years into it, I think we're still primarily selling our technologies into early adopters, and we still have a long time to go and a lot of growth to still enjoy as we cross the chasm into the early majority and kind of mass market segments. Got it. That's helpful. Brad, you previously mentioned that when you guys first started offering CosMx through your TAP program with a 1,000-plex offering and a 100-plex offering, most of your customers, actually, all of them chose the 1,000-plex option. I was just wondering, with your CosMx currently offering 5 panel options today with 2 of them being about a 1,000 plex and another 100 plex IO panel and a protein panel and a custom panel, what is the composition of the mix looking like today for the initial consumable stocking orders at these new CosMx sites? Yeah, I'd say that the vast majority of our CosMx consumable demand remains at the highest plex that we can offer. Today, you know, we're shipping up to 1,000 plex, and that accounts for the vast majority of, you know, both our technology access program demand and our consumables that we're shipping into those early sites. You know, based on my customer field visits over the past weeks, I expect that that demand is very likely to shift upward towards our 6,000 plex RNA panels once those become available in the Q1 of next year. There's tremendous excitement about the broad coverage that we can offer in 6,000 plex panels. Got it. Thank you. One more from me. In terms of your GeoMx demand trends, have you seen any changes in the pattern of your spatial demands between your profiler and imager recently? If there's any way you can provide more color on the unit shifts for CosMx and GeoMx for the quarter, that'd be much appreciated. Sure. You know, I think the only color we can provide is that, you know, demand has continued to shift from profilers to imagers. You know, it's for the reason I described in one of my earlier answers, that the spatial imagers, which have single cell resolution, are so easy to use for researchers who've been doing single cell biology in a non-spatial manner that it becomes a very natural first instrument to acquire in spatial biology. You know, Q1 was no exception. We had a very CosMx heavy order book and we would expect that to continue throughout 2023. You know, we're just fine with that. That's we're excited about what CosMx will continue to do. We're excited about its price point, its consumable pull-through dynamics, et cetera. You know, we expect that, you know, it's gonna be, you know, the most important product in NanoString history. Great. Thank you very much. There are no more questions. I'll pass the call back over to the management team for closing remarks. Thanks very much, everybody, for joining us today. If you did miss any portion of the call, the replay should be available within the next two hours or so. To access that, please dial 866-813-9403. International callers, please use.