MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1657558058 · doi:10.1002/0471142956.cy0608s13

Enumeration of Absolute Cell Counts Using Immunophenotypic Techniques

2000· article· en· W1657558058 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Protocols in Cytometry · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood groups and transfusion
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnumerationFlow cytometryImmunophenotypingImmunologyBiologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.838

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it