Evaluating flow cytometer performance with weighted quadratic least squares analysis of L<scp>ED</scp> and multi‐level bead data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We developed a fully automated procedure for analyzing data from LED pulses and multilevel bead sets to evaluate backgrounds and photoelectron scales of cytometer fluorescence channels. The method improves on previous formulations by fitting a full quadratic model with appropriate weighting and by providing standard errors and peak residuals as well as the fitted parameters themselves. Here we describe the details of the methods and procedures involved and present a set of illustrations and test cases that demonstrate the consistency and reliability of the results. The automated analysis and fitting procedure is generally quite successful in providing good estimates of the Spe (statistical photoelectron) scales and backgrounds for all the fluorescence channels on instruments with good linearity. The precision of the results obtained from LED data is almost always better than that from multilevel bead data, but the bead procedure is easy to carry out and provides results good enough for most purposes. Including standard errors on the fitted parameters is important for understanding the uncertainty in the values of interest. The weighted residuals give information about how well the data fits the model, and particularly high residuals indicate bad data points. Known photoelectron scales and measurement channel backgrounds make it possible to estimate the precision of measurements at different signal levels and the effects of compensated spectral overlap on measurement quality. Combining this information with measurements of standard samples carrying dyes of biological interest, we can make accurate comparisons of dye sensitivity among different instruments. Our method is freely available through the R/Bioconductor package flowQB. © 2017 International Society for Advancement of 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.
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 | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".