A Systematic Study on Transit Time and Its Impact on Accuracy of Concentration Measured by Microfluidic Devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gating or threshold selection is very important in analyzing data from a microflow cytometer, which is especially critical in analyzing weak signals from particles/cells with small sizes. It has been reported that using the amplitude gating alone may result in false positive events in analyzing data with a poor signal-to-noise ratio. Transit time (τ) can be set as a gating threshold along with side-scattered light or fluorescent light signals in the detection of particles/cells using a microflow cytometer. In this study, transit time of microspheres was studied systematically when the microspheres passed through a laser beam in a microflow cytometer and side-scattered light was detected. A clear linear relationship between the inverse of the average transit time and total flow rate was found. Transit time was used as another gate (other than the amplitude of side-scattering signals) to distinguish real scattering signals from noise. It was shown that the relative difference of the measured microsphere concentration can be reduced significantly from the range of 3.43%–8.77% to the range of 8.42%–111.76% by employing both amplitude and transit time as gates in analysis of collected scattering data. By using optimized transit time and amplitude gate thresholds, a good correlation with the traditional hemocytometer-based particle counting was achieved (R2 > 0.94). The obtained results suggest that the transit time could be used as another gate together with the amplitude gate to improve measurement accuracy of particle/cell concentration for microfluidic devices.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".