Enumeration of Absolute Cell Counts Using Immunophenotypic Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Absolute counting of cells or cell subsets has a number of significant clinical applications: monitoring the disease status of HIV‐infected patients, enumerating residual white blood cells in leukoreduced blood products, and assessing immunodeficiency in a variety of situations. The single‐platform method (flow cytometry alone) has emerged as the method of choice for absolute cell enumeration. This technology counts only the cells of interest in a precisely determined blood volume. Exact cell identification is accomplished by a logical electronic gating algorithm capable of identifying lineage‐specific immunofluorescent markers. Exclusion of unwanted cells is automatic. This extensive and detailed unit presents protocols for both volumetric and flow‐rate determination of residual white blood cells and of leukocyte subsets. Keywords: absolute count; volumetric counting; flow rate cytometry; counting microsphere standards; single‐platform absolute count; dual‐platform absolute count; logical gate; lineage‐specific markers; immunophenotyping; absolute residual WBC
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".