An image-based flow cytometric approach to the assessment of the nucleus-to-cytoplasm ratio
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The nucleus-to-cytoplasm ratio (N:C) can be used as one metric in histology for grading certain types of tumor malignancy. Current N:C assessment techniques are time-consuming and low throughput. Thus, in high-throughput clinical contexts, there is a need for a technique that can assess cell malignancy rapidly. In this study, we assess the N:C ratio of four different malignant cell lines (OCI-AML-5-blood cancer, CAKI-2-kidney cancer, HT-29-colon cancer, SK-BR-3-breast cancer) and a non-malignant cell line (MCF-10A -breast epithelium) using an imaging flow cytometer (IFC). Cells were stained with the DRAQ-5 nuclear dye to stain the cell nucleus. An Amnis ImageStreamX® IFC acquired brightfield/fluorescence images of cells and their nuclei, respectively. Masking and gating techniques were used to obtain the cell and nucleus diameters for 5284 OCI-AML-5 cells, 1096 CAKI-2 cells, 6302 HT-29 cells, 3159 SK-BR-3 cells, and 1109 MCF-10A cells. The N:C ratio was calculated as the ratio of the nucleus diameter to the total cell diameter. The average cell and nucleus diameters from IFC were 12.3 ± 1.2 μm and 9.0 ± 1.1 μm for OCI-AML5 cells, 24.5 ± 2.6 μm and 15.6 ± 2.1 μm for CAKI-2 cells, 16.2 ± 1.8 μm and 11.2 ± 1.3 μm for HT-29 cells, 18.0 ± 3.7 μm and 12.5 ± 2.1 μm for SK-BR-3 cells, and 19.4 ± 2.2 μm and 10.1 ± 1.8 μm for MCF-10A cells. Here we show a general N:C ratio of ~0.6-0.7 across varying malignant cell lines and a N:C ratio of ~0.5 for a non-malignant cell line. This study demonstrates the use of IFC to assess the N:C ratio of cancerous and non-cancerous cells, and the promise of its use in clinically relevant high-throughput detection scenarios to supplement current workflows used for cancer cell grading.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".