Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29287915›Full record

ArticleMethods (San Diego, Calif.)2018

High throughput automated analysis of big flow cytometry data.

Albina Rahim, Justin Meskas, Sibyl Drissler, Alice Yue, Anna Lorenc, Adam Laing, Namita Saran, Jacqui White, Lucie Abeler-Dörner, Adrian Hayday and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Methods (San Diego, Calif.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Investigating Vα7.2International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. flowSim: Near duplicate detection for flow cytometry data.Cytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. COVID-19: Using high-throughput flow cytometry to dissect clinical heterogeneity.Cytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Machine Learning of Discriminative Gate Locations for Clinical Diagnosis.Cytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology · 2020
    Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Albina RahimTerry Fox Laboratory, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Department of Bioinformatics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Justin MeskasTerry Fox Laboratory, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Sibyl DrisslerTerry Fox Laboratory, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Alice YueTerry Fox Laboratory, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, Canada; School of Computing Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada.
Anna LorencDepartment of Immunobiology, King's College London, United Kingdom.
Adam LaingDepartment of Immunobiology, King's College London, United Kingdom.
Namita SaranDepartment of Immunobiology, King's College London, United Kingdom.
Jacqui WhiteWellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, United Kingdom.
Lucie Abeler-DörnerDepartment of Immunobiology, King's College London, United Kingdom.
Adrian HaydayDepartment of Immunobiology, King's College London, United Kingdom; The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom.
Ryan R BrinkmanTerry Fox Laboratory, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Department of Medical Genetics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Electronic address: rbrinkman@bccrc.ca.

Funding

Big Flow Cytometry Data: Data Standards, Integration and AnalysisR01GM118417 · NIGMS · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI FINAK, GREG · 2017 to 2020
$1.2M
Cancer Research UK 20265NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM118417Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 100156/Z/12/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rapid expansion of flow cytometry applications has outpaced the functionality of traditional manual analysis tools used to interpret flow cytometry data. Scientists are faced with the daunting prospect of manually identifying interesting cell populations in 50-dimensional datasets, equalling the complexity previously only reached in mass cytometry. Data can no longer be analyzed or interpreted fully by manual approaches. While automated gating has been the focus of intense efforts, there are many significant additional steps to the analytical pipeline (e.g., cleaning the raw files, event outlier detection, extracting immunophenotypes). We review the components of a customized automated analysis pipeline that can be generally applied to large scale flow cytometry data. We demonstrate these methodologies on data collected by the International Mouse Phenotyping Consortium (IMPC).

Indexed as

Computational BiologyAlgorithmsAnimalsFlow CytometryHumansImmunophenotypingMiceSoftwareAutomated analysisBioinformaticsFlow cytometry

Identifiers

PMID29287915
PMCPMC5815930

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.