Methodology for evaluating and comparing flow cytometers: A multisite study of 23 instruments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We demonstrate improved methods for making valid and accurate comparisons of fluorescence measurement capabilities among instruments tested at different sites and times. We designed a suite of measurements and automated data processing methods to obtain consistent objective results and applied them to a selection of 23 instruments at nine sites to provide a range of instruments as well as multiple instances of similar instruments. As far as we know, this study represents the most accurate methods and results so far demonstrated for this purpose. The first component of the study reporting improved methods for photoelectron scale (Spe) evaluations, which was published previously (Parks, El Khettabi, Chase, Hoffman, Perfetto, Spidlen, Wood, Moore, and Brinkman: Cytometry A 91 (2017) 232-249). Those results which were within themselves are not sufficient for instrument comparisons, so here, we use the Spe scale results for the 23 cytometers and combine them with additional information from the analysis suite to obtain the metrics actually needed for instrument evaluations and comparisons. We adopted what we call the 2+2SD limit of resolution as a maximally informative metric, for evaluating and comparing dye measurement sensitivity among different instruments and measurement channels. Our results demonstrate substantial differences among different classes of instruments in both dye response and detection sensitivity and some surprisingly large differences among similar instruments, even among instruments with nominally identical configurations. On some instruments, we detected defective measurement channels needing service. The system can be applied in shared resource laboratories and other facilities as an aspect of quality assurance, and accurate instrument comparisons can be valuable for selecting instruments for particular purposes and for making informed instrument acquisition decisions. An institutionally supported program could serve the cytometry community by facilitating access to materials, and analysis and maintaining an archive of results. © 2018 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 | 0.106 | 0.172 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".