MIFlowCyt: The minimum information about a flow cytometry experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A fundamental tenet of scientific research is that published results are open to independent validation and refutation. Minimum data standards aid data providers, users, and publishers by providing a specification of what is required to unambiguously interpret experimental findings. Here, we present the Minimum Information about a Flow Cytometry Experiment (MIFlowCyt) standard, stating the minimum information required to report flow cytometry (FCM) experiments. We brought together a cross-disciplinary international collaborative group of bioinformaticians, computational statisticians, software developers, instrument manufacturers, and clinical and basic research scientists to develop the standard. The standard was subsequently vetted by the International Society for Advancement of Cytometry (ISAC) Data Standards Task Force, Standards Committee, membership, and Council. The MIFlowCyt standard includes recommendations about descriptions of the specimens and reagents included in the FCM experiment, the configuration of the instrument used to perform the assays, and the data processing approaches used to interpret the primary output data. MIFlowCyt has been adopted as a standard by ISAC, representing the FCM scientific community including scientists as well as software and hardware manufacturers. Adoptionof MIFlowCyt by the scientific and publishing communities will facilitate third-party understanding and reuse of FCM data.
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 | 0.051 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.038 |
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".