Equivalence of Laser Scanning Cytometric and Flow Cytometric Immunophenotyping of Lymphoid Lesions in Cytologic Samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The immunophenotype of lymphoid cytologic samples obtained by laser scanning cytometry (LSC) and flow cytometry (FC) was compared in 72 cases composed of a series of 23 cases with simultaneous LSC and FC immunophenotyping and a second series of 49 cases in which nonsimultaneous immunophenotyping was performed. In both series, no discordance in the population immunophenotype was found that would result in changes in diagnostic classification, although minor discordance in some antigens was found, predominantly affecting FMC7, CD11c, and CD23. The immunophenotype obtained by LSC shows a high degree of concordance with that obtained by FC and generates results that are diagnostically equivalent. Potential explanations for the discordant markers include differences related to the techniques, differences in the fluorochrome-labeled antibodies, technical factors, differences in antigen expression related to anatomic sites, temporal variations, and interpretive variances.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".