Data quality assessment of ungated flow cytometry data in high throughput experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The recent development of semiautomated techniques for staining and analyzing flow cytometry samples has presented new challenges. Quality control and quality assessment are critical when developing new high throughput technologies and their associated information services. Our experience suggests that significant bottlenecks remain in the development of high throughput flow cytometry methods for data analysis and display. Especially, data quality control and quality assessment are crucial steps in processing and analyzing high throughput flow cytometry data. METHODS: We propose a variety of graphical exploratory data analytic tools for exploring ungated flow cytometry data. We have implemented a number of specialized functions and methods in the Bioconductor package rflowcyt. We demonstrate the use of these approaches by investigating two independent sets of high throughput flow cytometry data. RESULTS: We found that graphical representations can reveal substantial nonbiological differences in samples. Empirical Cumulative Distribution Function and summary scatterplots were especially useful in the rapid identification of problems not identified by manual review. CONCLUSIONS: Graphical exploratory data analytic tools are quick and useful means of assessing data quality. We propose that the described visualizations should be used as quality assessment tools and where possible, be used for quality control.
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 | 0.093 | 0.237 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".