Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34141137›Full record

ArticleComputational and structural biotechnology journal2021

Data processing workflow for large-scale immune monitoring studies by mass cytometry.

Paulina Rybakowska, Sofie Van Gassen, Katrien Quintelier, Yvan Saeys, Marta E Alarcón-Riquelme, Concepción Marañón

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The βScience advances · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. ANPELA: Significantly Enhanced Quantification Tool for Cytometry-Based Single-Cell Proteomics.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Full spectrum flow cytometry and mass cytometry: A 32-marker panel comparison.Cytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology · 2022
    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

6 authors.

Paulina RybakowskaGENYO, Centre for Genomics and Oncological Research, Pfizer, University of Granada, Andalusian Regional Government, PTS Granada, Spain.
Sofie Van GassenDepartment of Applied Mathematics, Computer Sciences and Statistics, Ghent University, Gent Belgium.
Katrien QuintelierDepartment of Applied Mathematics, Computer Sciences and Statistics, Ghent University, Gent Belgium.
Yvan SaeysDepartment of Applied Mathematics, Computer Sciences and Statistics, Ghent University, Gent Belgium.
Marta E Alarcón-RiquelmeGENYO, Centre for Genomics and Oncological Research, Pfizer, University of Granada, Andalusian Regional Government, PTS Granada, Spain.
Concepción MarañónGENYO, Centre for Genomics and Oncological Research, Pfizer, University of Granada, Andalusian Regional Government, PTS Granada, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mass cytometry is a powerful tool for deep immune monitoring studies. To ensure maximal data quality, a careful experimental and analytical design is required. However even in well-controlled experiments variability caused by either operator or instrument can introduce artifacts that need to be corrected or removed from the data. Here we present a data processing pipeline which ensures the minimization of experimental artifacts and batch effects, while improving data quality. Data preprocessing and quality controls are carried out using an R pipeline and packages like

Indexed as

Data normalizationImmune phenotypingMass cytometryQuality controlSemi-automated data preprocessing

Identifiers

PMID34141137
PMCPMC8188119

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.