Single Cell Analysis of Stored Red Blood Cells Using Ultra-High Throughput Holographic Cytometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Holographic cytometry is introduced as an ultra-high throughput implementation of quantitative phase imaging of single cells flowing through parallel microfluidic channels. Here, the approach was applied for characterizing the morphology of individual red blood cells during storage under regular blood bank conditions. Samples from five blood donors were examined, over 100,000 cells examined for each, at three time points. The approach allows high-throughput phase imaging of a large number of cells, greatly extending our ability to study cellular phenotypes using individual cell images. Holographic cytology images can provide measurements of multiple physical traits of the cells, including optical volume and area, which are observed to consistently change over the storage time. In addition, the large volume of cell imaging data can serve as training data for machine-learning algorithms. For the study here, logistic regression was used to classify the cells according to the storage time points. The analysis showed that at least 5000 cells are needed to ensure accuracy of the classifiers. Overall, results showed the potential of holographic cytometry as a diagnostic tool.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".