SWIFT—scalable clustering for automated identification of rare cell populations in large, high‐dimensional flow cytometry datasets, Part 2: Biological evaluation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it