SWIFT—scalable clustering for automated identification of rare cell populations in large, high‐dimensional flow cytometry datasets, Part 2: Biological evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A multistage clustering and data processing method, SWIFT (detailed in a companion manuscript), has been developed to detect rare subpopulations in large, high-dimensional flow cytometry datasets. An iterative sampling procedure initially fits the data to multidimensional Gaussian distributions, then splitting and merging stages use a criterion of unimodality to optimize the detection of rare subpopulations, to converge on a consistent cluster number, and to describe non-Gaussian distributions. Probabilistic assignment of cells to clusters, visualization, and manipulation of clusters by their cluster medians, facilitate application of expert knowledge using standard flow cytometry programs. The dual problems of rigorously comparing similar complex samples, and enumerating absent or very rare cell subpopulations in negative controls, were solved by assigning cells in multiple samples to a cluster template derived from a single or combined sample. Comparison of antigen-stimulated and control human peripheral blood cell samples demonstrated that SWIFT could identify biologically significant subpopulations, such as rare cytokine-producing influenza-specific T cells. A sensitivity of better than one part per million was attained in very large samples. Results were highly consistent on biological replicates, yet the analysis was sensitive enough to show that multiple samples from the same subject were more similar than samples from different subjects. A companion manuscript (Part 1) details the algorithmic development of SWIFT.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".