Data File Standard for Flow Cytometry, version FCS 3.1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The flow cytometry data file standard provides the specifications needed to completely describe flow cytometry data sets within the confines of the file containing the experimental data. In 1984, the first Flow Cytometry Standard format for data files was adopted as FCS 1.0. This standard was modified in 1990 as FCS 2.0 and again in 1997 as FCS 3.0. We report here on the next generation flow cytometry standard data file format. FCS 3.1 is a minor revision based on suggested improvements from the community. The unchanged goal of the standard is to provide a uniform file format that allows files created by one type of acquisition hardware and software to be analyzed by any other type.The FCS 3.1 standard retains the basic FCS file structure and most features of previous versions of the standard. Changes included in FCS 3.1 address potential ambiguities in the previous versions and provide a more robust standard. The major changes include simplified support for international characters and improved support for storing compensation. The major additions are support for preferred display scale, a standardized way of capturing the sample volume, information about originality of the data file, and support for plate and well identification in high throughput, plate based experiments. Please see the normative version of the FCS 3.1 specification in Supporting Information for this manuscript (or at http://www.isac-net.org/ in the Current standards section) for a complete list of changes.
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 | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.193 | 0.168 |
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".