MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1486923278 · doi:10.1002/0471142956.cy0637s72

High‐Sensitivity Detection of PNH Red Blood Cells, Red Cell Precursors, and White Blood Cells

2015· article· en· W1486923278 on OpenAlexaff
D. Robert Sutherland, Andrea Illingworth, Michael Keeney, Stephen J. Richards

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Protocols in Cytometry · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicComplement system in diseases
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreToronto General HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParoxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuriaFlow cytometryImmunologyMonocyteMedicineCD59Antibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flow cytometry is the method of choice to 'diagnose' paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) and has led to improved patient management. Most laboratories have limited experience with PNH testing, and many different flow approaches are used. Careful selection and validation of antibody conjugates has allowed the development of reagent cocktails suitable for detection of PNH RBCs, CD71+ reticulocytes, and WBCs in clinical/sub-clinical PNH samples. A CD235a-FITC/CD59-PE assay was developed capable of detecting Type III PNH RBCs at 0.01% sensitivity. A protocol targeting immature CD71+ RBCs can detect PNH reticulocytes at similar sensitivity. Four-color FLAER-based neutrophil and monocyte assays were developed to detect PNH phenotypes at a level of 0.01% and 0.04% sensitivity, respectively. For instrumentation with five or more PMTs, a single-tube 5-color FLAER/CD157-based assay to simultaneously detect PNH neutrophils and monocytes is described. Using these standardized approaches, results have demonstrated good intra- and inter-laboratory performance characteristics even in laboratories with little prior experience performing PNH testing.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Protocols in CytometrySame topicComplement system in diseasesFrench-language works237,207