Strategies for Accurate Cell Type Identification in CODEX Multiplexed Imaging Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiplexed imaging is a recently developed and powerful single-cell biology research tool. However, it presents new sources of technical noise that are distinct from other types of single-cell data, necessitating new practices for single-cell multiplexed imaging processing and analysis, particularly regarding cell-type identification. Here we created single-cell multiplexed imaging datasets by performing CODEX on four sections of the human colon (ascending, transverse, descending, and sigmoid) using a panel of 47 oligonucleotide-barcoded antibodies. After cell segmentation, we implemented five different normalization techniques crossed with four unsupervised clustering algorithms, resulting in 20 unique cell-type annotations for the same dataset. We generated two standard annotations: hand-gated cell types and cell types produced by over-clustering with spatial verification. We then compared these annotations at four levels of cell-type granularity. First, increasing cell-type granularity led to decreased labeling accuracy; therefore, subtle phenotype annotations should be avoided at the clustering step. Second, accuracy in cell-type identification varied more with normalization choice than with clustering algorithm. Third, unsupervised clustering better accounted for segmentation noise during cell-type annotation than hand-gating. Fourth, Z-score normalization was generally effective in mitigating the effects of noise from single-cell multiplexed imaging. Variation in cell-type identification will lead to significant differential spatial results such as cellular neighborhood analysis; consequently, we also make recommendations for accurately assigning cell-type labels to CODEX multiplexed imaging.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".