Guidelines for establishing a cytometry laboratory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this document is to provide guidance for establishing and maintaining growth and development of flow cytometry shared resource laboratories. While the best practices offered in this manuscript are not intended to be universal or exhaustive, they do outline key goals that should be prioritized to achieve operational excellence and meet the needs of the scientific community. Additionally, this document provides information on available technologies and software relevant to shared resource laboratories. This manuscript builds on the work of Barsky et al. 2016 published in Cytometry Part A and incorporates recent advancements in cytometric technology. A flow cytometer is a specialized piece of technology that require special care and consideration in its housing and operations. As with any scientific equipment, a thorough evaluation of the location, space requirements, auxiliary resources, and support is crucial for successful operation. This comprehensive resource has been written by past and present members of the International Society for Advancement of Cytometry (ISAC) Shared Resource Laboratory (SRL) Emerging Leaders Program https://isac-net.org/general/custom.asp?page=SRL-Emerging-Leaders with extensive expertise in managing flow cytometry SRLs from around the world in different settings including academia and industry. It is intended to assist in establishing a new flow cytometry SRL, re-purposing an existing space into such a facility, or adding a flow cytometer to an individual lab in academia or industry. This resource reviews the available cytometry technologies, the operational requirements, and best practices in SRL staffing and management.
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 | 0.054 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.113 |
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".