<scp>flowSim</scp> : Near duplicate detection for flow cytometry data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The analysis of large amounts of data is important for the development of machine learning (ML) models. flowSim is the first algorithm designed to visualize, detect and remove highly redundant information in flow cytometry (FCM) training sets to decrease the computational time for training and increase the performance of ML algorithms by reducing overfitting. flowSim performs near duplicate image detection by combining community detection algorithms with the density analysis of the marker expression values. flowSim clustering compared to consensus manual clustering on a dataset composed of 160 images of bivariate FCM data had a mean Adjusted Rand Index of 0.90, demonstrating its efficiency in identifying similar patterns. flowSim selectively discarded near duplicate files in datasets constructed with known redundancy, and removed 92.6% of FCM images in a dataset of over 500,000 drawn from public repositories.
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 | 0.012 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.170 | 0.067 |
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".