MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964706700 · doi:10.1165/rcmb.2019-0191st

Improving the Quality and Reproducibility of Flow Cytometry in the Lung. An Official American Thoracic Society Workshop Report

2019· article· en· W2964706700 on OpenAlexaff
Robert M. Tighe, Elizabeth F. Redente, Yen‐Rei Yu, Susanne Herold, Anne I. Sperling, Jeffrey L. Curtis, Ryan Duggan, Suchitra Swaminathan, Hideki Nakano, William J. Zacharias, William J. Janssen, Christine M. Freeman, Ryan R. Brinkman, Benjamin D. Singer, Claudia Jakubzick, Alexander V. Misharin

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute on AgingNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsReproducibilityFlow cytometryMedicineSection (typography)Quality (philosophy)Computer sciencePathologyMedical physicsStatisticsImmunologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Defining responses of the structural and immune cells in biologic systems is critically important to understanding disease states and responses to injury. This requires accurate and sensitive methods to define cell types in organ systems. The principal method to delineate the cell populations involved in these processes is flow cytometry. Although researchers increasingly use flow cytometry, technical challenges can affect its accuracy and reproducibility, thus significantly limiting scientific advancements. This challenge is particularly critical to lung immunology, as the lung is readily accessible and therefore used in preclinical and clinical studies to define potential therapeutics. Given the importance of flow cytometry in pulmonary research, the American Thoracic Society convened a working group to highlight issues and technical challenges to the performance of high-quality pulmonary flow cytometry, with a goal of improving its quality and reproducibility.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.607
Threshold uncertainty score0.592

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.383 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations68
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular BiologySame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207