Shared resource lab ( <scp>SRL</scp> ) strategies for supporting high‐dimensional cytometry data analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the increase in the number of parameters that can be detected at the single-cell level using flow and mass cytometry, there has been a paradigm shift when handling and analyzing data sets. Cytometry Shared Resource Laboratories (SRLs) already take on the responsibility of ensuring users have resources and training in experimental design and operation of instruments to promote high-quality data acquisition. However, the role of SRLs downstream, during data handling and analysis, is not as well defined and agreed upon. Best practices dictate a central role for SRLs in this process as they are in a pivotal position to support research in this context, but key considerations about how to effectively fill this role need to be addressed. Two surveys and one workshop at CYTO 2022 in Philadelphia, PA, were performed to gain insight into what strategies SRLs are successfully employing to support high-dimensional data analysis and where SRLs and their users see limitations and long-term challenges in this area. Recommendations for high-dimensional data analysis support provided by SRLs will be offered and discussed.
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 | 0.095 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.063 | 0.064 |
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".