Automated Data Cleanup for Mass Cytometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mass cytometry is an emerging technology capable of 40 or more correlated measurements on a single cell. The complexity and volume of data generated by this platform have accelerated the creation of novel methods for high-dimensional data analysis and visualization. A key step in any high-level data analysis is the removal of unwanted events, a process often referred to as data cleanup. Data cleanup as applied to mass cytometry typically focuses on elimination of dead cells, debris, normalization beads, true aggregates, and coincident ion clouds from raw data. We describe a probability state modeling (PSM) method that automatically identifies and removes these elements, resulting in FCS files that contain mostly live and intact events. This approach not only leverages QC measurements such as DNA, live/dead, and event length but also four additional pulse-processing parameters that are available on Fluidigm Helios™ and CyTOF® (Fluidigm, Markham, Canada) 2 instruments with software versions of 6.3 or higher. These extra Gaussian-derived parameters are valuable for detecting well-formed pulses and eliminating coincident positive ion clouds. The automated nature of this new routine avoids the subjectivity of other gating methods and results in unbiased elimination of unwanted events. © 2019 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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.040 |
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".