Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31543876›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in immunology2019

A Computational Pipeline for the Diagnosis of CVID Patients.

Annelies Emmaneel, Delfien J Bogaert, Sofie Van Gassen, Simon J Tavernier, Melissa Dullaers, Filomeen Haerynck, Yvan Saeys

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Data processing workflow for large-scale immune monitoring studies by mass cytometry.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2021
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Annelies EmmaneelDepartment of Applied Mathematics, Computer Science and Statistics, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Delfien J BogaertPrimary Immunodeficiency Research Lab, Center for Primary Immunodeficiency Ghent, Jeffrey Modell Diagnosis and Research Center, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Sofie Van GassenDepartment of Applied Mathematics, Computer Science and Statistics, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Simon J TavernierPrimary Immunodeficiency Research Lab, Center for Primary Immunodeficiency Ghent, Jeffrey Modell Diagnosis and Research Center, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Melissa DullaersAblynx, A Sanofi Company, Zwijnaarde, Belgium.
Filomeen HaerynckPrimary Immunodeficiency Research Lab, Center for Primary Immunodeficiency Ghent, Jeffrey Modell Diagnosis and Research Center, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Yvan SaeysDepartment of Applied Mathematics, Computer Science and Statistics, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
VIB-UGent Center for Inflammation Research · BEGhent University Hospital · BEGhent University · BESanofi (Belgium) · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Common variable immunodeficiency (CVID) is one of the most frequently diagnosed primary antibody deficiencies (PADs), a group of disorders characterized by a decrease in one or more immunoglobulin (sub)classes and/or impaired antibody responses caused by inborn defects in B cells in the absence of other major immune defects. CVID patients suffer from recurrent infections and disease-related, non-infectious, complications such as autoimmune manifestations, lymphoproliferation, and malignancies. A timely diagnosis is essential for optimal follow-up and treatment. However, CVID is by definition a diagnosis of exclusion, thereby covering a heterogeneous patient population and making it difficult to establish a definite diagnosis. To aid the diagnosis of CVID patients, and distinguish them from other PADs, we developed an automated machine learning pipeline which performs automated diagnosis based on flow cytometric immunophenotyping. Using this pipeline, we analyzed the immunophenotypic profile in a pediatric and adult cohort of 28 patients with CVID, 23 patients with idiopathic primary hypogammaglobulinemia, 21 patients with IgG subclass deficiency, six patients with isolated IgA deficiency, one patient with isolated IgM deficiency, and 100 unrelated healthy controls. Flow cytometry analysis is traditionally done by manual identification of the cell populations of interest. Yet, this approach has severe limitations including subjectivity of the manual gating and bias toward known populations. To overcome these limitations, we here propose an automated computational flow cytometry pipeline that successfully distinguishes CVID phenotypes from other PADs and healthy controls. Compared to the traditional, manual analysis, our pipeline is fully automated, performing automated quality control and data pre-processing, automated population identification (gating) and deriving features from these populations to build a machine learning classifier to distinguish CVID from other PADs and healthy controls. This results in a more reproducible flow cytometry analysis, and improves the diagnosis compared to manual analysis: our pipelines achieve on average a balanced accuracy score of 0.93 (±0.07), whereas using the manually extracted populations, an averaged balanced accuracy score of 0.72 (±0.23) is achieved.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overB-LymphocytesCase-Control StudiesChildChild, PreschoolCommon Variable ImmunodeficiencyFemaleFlow CytometryHumansImmunoglobulinsImmunophenotypingMaleMiddle AgedImmunoglobulinscomputational pipelineCVIDflow cytometryFlowSOMPAD

Identifiers

PMID31543876
PMCPMC6730493
OpenAlexW2966127092

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.