MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386415062 · doi:10.1093/stcltm/szad047.022

Abstract 21 Machine Learning Approach for Automatic Enumeration of Cord Blood Stem Cells by Flow Cytometry

2023· article· en· W4386415062 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Trépanier, Carl Simard, Diane Fournier

Bibliographic record

VenueStem Cells Translational Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics
Canadian institutionsHéma-Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnumerationFlow cytometryGatingComputer scienceCytometryProtocol (science)Cord bloodArtificial intelligenceInferenceCD34AlgorithmData miningPattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningStem cellMedicinePathologyMathematicsImmunologyBiologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Stem cell laboratories measure the number of viable CD34+ and CD45+ cells in their products by flow cytometry following a standard protocol (ISHAGE). Although the ISHAGE protocol is well documented, its correct application can be challenging. Automated gating algorithms have been created to address this issue, but they have limitations and can only be used in certain conditions. Recent developments in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have made these approaches more accessible and practical to use. For flow cytometry data, the Cytobank platform now offers the Automatic Gating Algorithm (AGA), an AI-ML-based feature allowing users to easily implement their own gating strategies. Objectives The performance of the AGA based on the ISHAGE protocol gating was evaluated using cord blood post-thaw flow cytometry data. Methods In this study, the AGA was trained using 29 flow cytometry cord blood data files analyzed according to the ISHAGE gating strategy. Using the model, an inference analysis was conducted on two series of 12 data samples acquired from two independent operators. The enumeration of viable CD34+ cells was manually performed and compared to the AI analyses. Results The mean differences and standard deviation in vCD34+ counts between the manual and the automatic gating are 6.0% ± 2.7 for Operator #1 and 7.7% ± 2.1 for Operator #2. The correlation coefficients between vCD34+ results are 0.9981 for Operator #1 vs AI, and 0.9699 for Operator #2 vs AI. These results show that the AI inference provides results comparable to human manual gating, and are within the accepted difference of 10% between duplicates as defined by ISHAGE convention. Discussion This study provides a testing ground for using AI-ML-based automatic gating and supports its use in stem cell laboratories with acceptable performance and accuracy. The application of AI and ML for vCD34+ enumeration can potentially lead to the development of more widely applicable automatic gating algorithms. This could improve standardization by providing a common tool for analyzing flow cytometry data.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.816

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStem Cells Translational MedicineSame topicSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomicsFrench-language works237,207