Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33244129›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Machine learning issues and opportunities in ultrafast particle classification for label-free microflow cytometry.

Alessio Lugnan, Emmanuel Gooskens, Jeremy Vatin, Joni Dambre, Peter Bienstman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. 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

5 authors.

Alessio LugnanPhotonics Research Group, UGent - imec, Technologiepark 126, 9052, Ghent, Belgium. alessio.lugnan@ugent.be.
Emmanuel GooskensPhotonics Research Group, UGent - imec, Technologiepark 126, 9052, Ghent, Belgium.
Jeremy VatinChair in Photonics, CentraleSupélec and Université Lorraine, LMOPS EA 4423, 2 rue Edouard Belin, 57070, Metz, France.
Joni DambreIDLab, UGent - imec, Technologiepark 126, 9052, Ghent, Belgium.
Peter BienstmanPhotonics Research Group, UGent - imec, Technologiepark 126, 9052, Ghent, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning offers promising solutions for high-throughput single-particle analysis in label-free imaging microflow cytomtery. However, the throughput of online operations such as cell sorting is often limited by the large computational cost of the image analysis while offline operations may require the storage of an exceedingly large amount of data. Moreover, the training of machine learning systems can be easily biased by slight drifts of the measurement conditions, giving rise to a significant but difficult to detect degradation of the learned operations. We propose a simple and versatile machine learning approach to perform microparticle classification at an extremely low computational cost, showing good generalization over large variations in particle position. We present proof-of-principle classification of interference patterns projected by flowing transparent PMMA microbeads with diameters of [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text]. To this end, a simple, cheap and compact label-free microflow cytometer is employed. We also discuss in detail the detection and prevention of machine learning bias in training and testing due to slight drifts of the measurement conditions. Moreover, we investigate the implications of modifying the projected particle pattern by means of a diffraction grating, in the context of optical extreme learning machine implementations.

Identifiers

PMID33244129
PMCPMC7691359

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.