MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317989676 · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.2c00350

Reagents for Mass Cytometry

2023· review· en· W4317989676 on OpenAlexafffund
Loryn P. Arnett, Rahul Rana, Wilson Wai-Yip Chung, Xiaochong Li, Mahtab Abtahi, Daniel Majonis, Jay Bassan, Mark Nitz, Mitchell A. Winnik

Bibliographic record

VenueChemical Reviews · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsFluidigm (Canada)University of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFluidigm
KeywordsMass cytometryChemistryReagentCytometryFlow cytometryBioanalysisMass spectrometryInductively coupled plasma mass spectrometryResolution (logic)ChromatographyNanotechnologyMolecular biologyCellBiochemistryComputer scienceMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mass cytometry (cytometry by time-of-flight detection [CyTOF]) is a bioanalytical technique that enables the identification and quantification of diverse features of cellular systems with single-cell resolution. In suspension mass cytometry, cells are stained with stable heavy-atom isotope-tagged reagents, and then the cells are nebulized into an inductively coupled plasma time-of-flight mass spectrometry (ICP-TOF-MS) instrument. In imaging mass cytometry, a pulsed laser is used to ablate ca. 1 μm 2 spots of a tissue section. The plume is then transferred to the CyTOF, generating an image of biomarker expression. Similar measurements are possible with multiplexed ion bean imaging (MIBI). The unit mass resolution of the ICP-TOF-MS detector allows for multiparametric analysis of (in principle) up to 130 different parameters. Currently available reagents, however, allow simultaneous measurement of up to 50 biomarkers. As new reagents are developed, the scope of information that can be obtained by mass cytometry continues to increase, particularly due to the development of new small molecule reagents which enable monitoring of active biochemistry at the cellular level. This review summarizes the history and current state of mass cytometry reagent development and elaborates on areas where there is a need for new reagents. Additionally, this review provides guidelines on how new reagents should be tested and how the data should be presented to make them most meaningful to the mass cytometry user community.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0460.094

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations58
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemical ReviewsSame topicCell Image Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207