Novel lymphocyte screening tube using dried monoclonal antibody reagents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We previously developed a 10-color 11-antibody combination including a viability dye, to screen T-, B-, and natural killer (NK)-cell populations in blood, bone marrow, tissue, and body fluids. Recently, Beckman Coulter has introduced a line of dried reagents that, unlike liquid reagents and cocktails, require no refrigeration, titration, or manipulation before using. We evaluated custom tubes based on our standard lymphocyte screening panel, focusing on comparative analysis, ease of use, and advantages compared with our liquid reagent set. We tested 42 samples from blood (n = 15), bone marrow (n = 17), and tissue (n = 10) with the combination CD4/CD8/KAPPA/LAMBDA/CD19/CD56/CD5/CD20/CD10/CD3/CD45 and a vital dye by both methods and compared positivity and staining intensity for each antigen. Of the 42 samples, 5 were normal samples, 3 were red cell disorders, 20 were B-cell malignancies, 5 T-cell malignancies, 4 myeloid malignancies, and the remaining 5 were other diagnoses. Dried reagents gave equivalent staining intensity results to our standard panel in a variety of sample types, with diagnoses including reactive lymphocytosis, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and various lymphomas. Our standard panel for evaluation of mature lymphoid malignancies allows rapid assessment of any sample type while providing direct assessment of viability. The dried reagent tube reduces preanalytical work, with simple addition of sample and the viability dye to the tube, saving time, reducing potential errors, and obviating need to titrate and monitor individual antibodies. With a shelf life of at least 12 months, the reagents also offer potential savings in reagent costs by reducing wastage due to expiration or tandem breakdown in standard liquid formulation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".