Automatic Classification of Circulating Blood Cell Clusters based on Multi-channel Flow Cytometry Imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Circulating blood cell clusters (CCCs) containing red blood cells (RBCs), white blood cells (WBCs), and platelets are significant biomarkers linked to conditions like thrombosis, infection, and inflammation. Flow cytometry, paired with fluorescence staining, is commonly used to analyze these cell clusters, revealing cell morphology and protein profiles. While computational approaches based on machine learning have advanced the automatic analysis of single-cell flow cytometry images, there is a lack of effort to build tools to automatically analyze images containing CCCs. Unlike single cells, cell clusters often exhibit irregular shapes and sizes. In addition, these cell clusters often consist of heterogeneous cell types, which require multi-channel staining to identify the specific cell types within the clusters. This study introduces a new computational framework for analyzing CCC images and identifying cell types within clusters. Our framework uses a two-step analysis strategy. First, it categorizes images into cell cluster and non-cluster groups by fine-tuning the You Only Look Once(YOLOv11) model, which outperforms traditional convolutional neural networks (CNNs), Vision Transformers (ViT). Then, it identifies cell types by overlaying cluster contours with regions from multi-channel fluorescence stains, enhancing accuracy despite cell debris and staining artifacts. This approach achieved over 95% accuracy in both cluster classification and phenotype identification. In summary, our automated framework effectively analyzes CCC images from flow cytometry, leveraging both bright-field and fluorescence data. Initially tested on blood cells, it holds potential for broader applications, such as analyzing immune and tumor cell clusters, supporting cellular research across various diseases.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".