Per‐channel basis normalization methods for flow cytometry data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Between-sample variation in high-throughput flow cytometry data poses a significant challenge for analysis of large-scale data sets, such as those derived from multicenter clinical trials. It is often hard to match biologically relevant cell populations across samples because of technical variation in sample acquisition and instrumentation differences. Thus, normalization of data is a critical step before analysis, particularly in large-scale data sets from clinical trials, where group-specific differences may be subtle and patient-to-patient variation common. We have developed two normalization methods that remove technical between-sample variation by aligning prominent features (landmarks) in the raw data on a per-channel basis. These algorithms were tested on two independent flow cytometry data sets by comparing manually gated data, either individually for each sample or using static gating templates, before and after normalization. Our results show a marked improvement in the overlap between manual and static gating when the data are normalized, thereby facilitating the use of automated analyses on large flow cytometry data sets. Such automated analyses are essential for high-throughput flow cytometry.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it