Data Standards for Flow Cytometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flow cytometry (FCM) is an analytical tool widely used for cancer and HIV/AIDS research, and treatment, stem cell manipulation and detecting microorganisms in environmental samples. Current data standards do not capture the full scope of FCM experiments and there is a demand for software tools that can assist in the exploration and analysis of large FCM datasets. We are implementing a standardized approach to capturing, analyzing, and disseminating FCM data that will facilitate both more complex analyses and analysis of datasets that could not previously be efficiently studied. Initial work has focused on developing a community-based guideline for recording and reporting the details of FCM experiments. Open source software tools that implement this standard are being created, with an emphasis on facilitating reproducible and extensible data analyses. As well, tools for electronic collaboration will assist the integrated access and comprehension of experiments to empower users to collaborate on FCM analyses. This coordinated, joint development of bioinformatics standards and software tools for FCM data analysis has the potential to greatly facilitate both basic and clinical research--impacting a notably diverse range of medical and environmental research areas.
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 | 0.031 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.056 |
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".