ArticleScientific reports2020
Machine learning issues and opportunities in ultrafast particle classification for label-free microflow cytometry.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI in Drug Discovery: Clinical Failures, Regulatory Reality, and the Validation Crisis Behind the Hype.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Hyper-dimensional computing for enhanced label-free particle analysis in a flow-based optical detection system.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Traditional machine learning in biomedical image analysis: before you go too deep.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Review
- Context aware machine learning techniques for brain tumor classification and detection - A review.Heliyon · 2025Review
- Rapid classification of micro-particles using multi-angle dynamic light scatting and machine learning approach.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.