Recommendations for using artificial intelligence in clinical flow cytometry
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flow cytometry is a key clinical tool in the diagnosis of many hematologic malignancies and traditionally requires close inspection of digital data by hematopathologists with expert domain knowledge. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) are transferable to flow cytometry and have the potential to improve efficiency and prioritization of cases, reduce errors, and highlight fundamental, previously unrecognized associations with underlying biological processes. As a multidisciplinary group of stakeholders, we review a range of critical considerations for appropriately applying AI to clinical flow cytometry, including use case identification, low and high risk use cases, validation, revalidation, computational considerations, and the present regulatory frameworks surrounding AI in clinical medicine. In particular, we provide practical guidance for the development, implementation, and suggestions for potential regulation of AI-based methods in the clinical flow cytometry laboratory. We expect these recommendations to be a helpful initial framework of reference, which will also require additional updates as the field matures.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it