SWIFT—scalable clustering for automated identification of rare cell populations in large, high‐dimensional flow cytometry datasets, Part 1: Algorithm design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a model-based clustering method, SWIFT (Scalable Weighted Iterative Flow-clustering Technique), for digesting high-dimensional large-sized datasets obtained via modern flow cytometry into more compact representations that are well-suited for further automated or manual analysis. Key attributes of the method include the following: (a) the analysis is conducted in the multidimensional space retaining the semantics of the data, (b) an iterative weighted sampling procedure is utilized to maintain modest computational complexity and to retain discrimination of extremely small subpopulations (hundreds of cells from datasets containing tens of millions), and (c) a splitting and merging procedure is incorporated in the algorithm to preserve distinguishability between biologically distinct populations, while still providing a significant compaction relative to the original data. This article presents a detailed algorithmic description of SWIFT, outlining the application-driven motivations for the different design choices, a discussion of computational complexity of the different steps, and results obtained with SWIFT for synthetic data and relatively simple experimental data that allow validation of the desirable attributes. A companion paper (Part 2) highlights the use of SWIFT, in combination with additional computational tools, for more challenging biological problems.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".