Multi‐site reproducibility of a human immunophenotyping assay in whole blood and peripheral blood mononuclear cells preparations using CyTOF technology coupled with Maxpar Pathsetter, an automated data analysis system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-dimensional mass cytometry data potentially enable a comprehensive characterization of immune cells. In order to positively affect clinical trials and translational clinical research, this advanced technology needs to demonstrate a high reproducibility of results across multiple sites for both peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) and whole blood preparations. A dry 30-marker broad immunophenotyping panel and customized automated analysis software were recently engineered and are commercially available as the Fluidigm® Maxpar® Direct™ Immune Profiling Assay™. In this study, seven sites received whole blood and six sites received PBMC samples from single donors over a 2-week interval. Each site labeled replicate samples and acquired data on Helios™ instruments using an assay-specific acquisition template. All acquired sample files were then automatically analyzed by Maxpar Pathsetter™ software. A cleanup step eliminated debris, dead cells, aggregates, and normalization beads. The second step automatically enumerated 37 immune cell populations and performed label intensity assessments on all 30 markers. The inter-site reproducibility of the 37 quantified cell populations had consistent population frequencies, with an average %CV of 14.4% for whole blood and 17.7% for PBMC. The dry reagent coupled with automated data analysis is not only convenient but also provides a high degree of reproducibility within and among multiple test sites resulting in a comprehensive yet practical solution for deep immune phenotyping.
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 | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".