ArticleBMC bioinformatics2014
A non-parametric Bayesian model for joint cell clustering and cluster matching: identification of anomalous sample phenotypes with random effects.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Artificial Intelligence in Haematologic Diagnostics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives.Acta haematologica · 2026Review
- Computationally efficient multi-sample flow cytometry data analysis using Gaussian mixture models.BMC bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Coarsened Mixtures of Hierarchical Skew Normal Kernels for Flow and Mass Cytometry Analyses.Bayesian analysis · 2024Article
- Flow Cytometry: The Next Revolution.Cells · 2023Review
- UMAP Based Anomaly Detection for Minimal Residual Disease Quantification within Acute Myeloid Leukemia.Cancers · 2022Article
- How artificial intelligence might disrupt diagnostics in hematology in the near future.Oncogene · 2021Review
- Artificial Intelligence and Digital Microscopy Applications in Diagnostic Hematopathology.Cancers · 2020Review
- Guidelines for the use of flow cytometry and cell sorting in immunological studies (second edition).European journal of immunology · 2019Article
- QFMatch: multidimensional flow and mass cytometry samples alignment.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Guidelines for the use of flow cytometry and cell sorting in immunological studies.European journal of immunology · 2017Article
- Automated Assessment of Disease Progression in Acute Myeloid Leukemia by Probabilistic Analysis of Flow Cytometry Data.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2017Article
- flowVS: channel-specific variance stabilization in flow cytometry.BMC bioinformatics · 2016Article
- Computational flow cytometry: helping to make sense of high-dimensional immunology data.Nature reviews. Immunology · 2016Review
- BayesFlow: latent modeling of flow cytometry cell populations.BMC bioinformatics · 2016Article
- A benchmark for evaluation of algorithms for identification of cellular correlates of clinical outcomes.Cytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFlow cytometry (FC)-based computer-aided diagnostics is an emerging technique utilizing modern multiparametric cytometry systems.The major difficulty in using machine-learning approaches for classification of FC data arises from limited access to a wide variety of anomalous samples for training. In consequence, any learning with an abundance of normal cases and a limited set of specific anomalous cases is biased towards the types of anomalies represented in the training set. Such models do not accurately identify anomalies, whether previously known or unknown, that may exist in future samples tested. Although one-class classifiers trained using only normal cases would avoid such a bias, robust sample characterization is critical for a generalizable model. Owing to sample heterogeneity and instrumental variability, arbitrary characterization of samples usually introduces feature noise that may lead to poor predictive performance. Herein, we present a non-parametric Bayesian algorithm called ASPIRE (anomalous sample phenotype identification with random effects) that identifies phenotypic differences across a batch of samples in the presence of random effects. Our approach involves simultaneous clustering of cellular measurements in individual samples and matching of discovered clusters across all samples in order to recover global clusters using probabilistic sampling techniques in a systematic way.
resultsWe demonstrate the performance of the proposed method in identifying anomalous samples in two different FC data sets, one of which represents a set of samples including acute myeloid leukemia (AML) cases, and the other a generic 5-parameter peripheral-blood immunophenotyping. Results are evaluated in terms of the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC). ASPIRE achieved AUCs of 0.99 and 1.0 on the AML and generic blood immunophenotyping data sets, respectively.
conclusionsThese results demonstrate that anomalous samples can be identified by ASPIRE with almost perfect accuracy without a priori access to samples of anomalous subtypes in the training set. The ASPIRE approach is unique in its ability to form generalizations regarding normal and anomalous states given only very weak assumptions regarding sample characteristics and origin. Thus, ASPIRE could become highly instrumental in providing unique insights about observed biological phenomena in the absence of full information about the investigated samples.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.