RchyOptimyx: Cellular hierarchy optimization for flow cytometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analysis of high-dimensional flow cytometry datasets can reveal novel cell populations with poorly understood biology. Following discovery, characterization of these populations in terms of the critical markers involved is an important step, as this can help to both better understand the biology of these populations and aid in designing simpler marker panels to identify them on simpler instruments and with fewer reagents (i.e., in resource poor or highly regulated clinical settings). However, current tools to design panels based on the biological characteristics of the target cell populations work exclusively based on technical parameters (e.g., instrument configurations, spectral overlap, and reagent availability). To address this shortcoming, we developed RchyOptimyx (cellular hieraRCHY OPTIMization), a computational tool that constructs cellular hierarchies by combining automated gating with dynamic programming and graph theory to provide the best gating strategies to identify a target population to a desired level of purity or correlation with a clinical outcome, using the simplest possible marker panels. RchyOptimyx can assess and graphically present the trade-offs between marker choice and population specificity in high-dimensional flow or mass cytometry datasets. We present three proof-of-concept use cases for RchyOptimyx that involve 1) designing a panel of surface markers for identification of rare populations that are primarily characterized using their intracellular signature; 2) simplifying the gating strategy for identification of a target cell population; 3) identification of a non-redundant marker set to identify a target cell population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".