MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042829929 · doi:10.1002/cyto.a.20531

Automated gating of flow cytometry data via robust model‐based clustering

2008· article· en· W2042829929 on OpenAlexafffund
Kenneth Lo, Ryan R. Brinkman, Raphaël Gottardo

Bibliographic record

VenueCytometry Part A · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsTerry Fox Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsComputer scienceCluster analysisOutlierMixture modelRobustness (evolution)Data miningCytometryExpectation–maximization algorithmStatistical modelTransformation (genetics)Artificial intelligenceMaximum likelihoodFlow cytometryStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The capability of flow cytometry to offer rapid quantification of multidimensional characteristics for millions of cells has made this technology indispensable for health research, medical diagnosis, and treatment. However, the lack of statistical and bioinformatics tools to parallel recent high-throughput technological advancements has hindered this technology from reaching its full potential. We propose a flexible statistical model-based clustering approach for identifying cell populations in flow cytometry data based on t-mixture models with a Box-Cox transformation. This approach generalizes the popular Gaussian mixture models to account for outliers and allow for nonelliptical clusters. We describe an Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm to simultaneously handle parameter estimation and transformation selection. Using two publicly available datasets, we demonstrate that our proposed methodology provides enough flexibility and robustness to mimic manual gating results performed by an expert researcher. In addition, we present results from a simulation study, which show that this new clustering framework gives better results in terms of robustness to model misspecification and estimation of the number of clusters, compared to the popular mixture models. The proposed clustering methodology is well adapted to automated analysis of flow cytometry data. It tends to give more reproducible results, and helps reduce the significant subjectivity and human time cost encountered in manual gating analysis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations275
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCytometry Part ASame topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207