Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34549881›Full record

ArticleCytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology2022

PeacoQC: Peak-based selection of high quality cytometry data.

Annelies Emmaneel, Katrien Quintelier, Dorine Sichien, Paulina Rybakowska, Concepción Marañón, Marta E Alarcón-Riquelme, Gert Van Isterdael, Sofie Van Gassen, Yvan Saeys

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. CD25Frontiers in immunology · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

9 authors.

Annelies EmmaneelData Mining and Modeling for Biomedicine Group, VIB Center for Inflammation Research, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-4569-2330
Katrien QuintelierData Mining and Modeling for Biomedicine Group, VIB Center for Inflammation Research, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-5306-5615
Dorine SichienLaboratory of Immunoregulation and Mucosal Immunology, VIB Center for Inflammation Research, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-7298-3005
Paulina RybakowskaGENYO, Centre for Genomics and Oncological Research Pfizer/University of Granada/Andalusian Regional Government, PTS Granada, Granada, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4229-8242
Concepción MarañónGENYO, Centre for Genomics and Oncological Research Pfizer/University of Granada/Andalusian Regional Government, PTS Granada, Granada, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-7827-6301
Marta E Alarcón-RiquelmeGENYO, Centre for Genomics and Oncological Research Pfizer/University of Granada/Andalusian Regional Government, PTS Granada, Granada, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-7632-4154
Gert Van IsterdaelVIB Flow Core, VIB Center for Inflammation Research, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-6626-1316
Sofie Van GassenData Mining and Modeling for Biomedicine Group, VIB Center for Inflammation Research, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-7119-5330
Yvan SaeysData Mining and Modeling for Biomedicine Group, VIB Center for Inflammation Research, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-0415-1506

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In cytometry analysis, a large number of markers is measured for thousands or millions of cells, resulting in high-dimensional datasets. During the measurement of these samples, erroneous events can occur such as clogs, speed changes, slow uptake of the sample etc., which can influence the downstream analysis and can even lead to false discoveries. As these issues can be difficult to detect manually, an automated approach is recommended. In order to filter these erroneous events out, we created a novel quality control algorithm, Peak Extraction And Cleaning Oriented Quality Control (PeacoQC), that allows for automated cleaning of cytometry data. The algorithm will determine density peaks per channel on which it will remove low quality events based on their position in the isolation tree and on their mean absolute deviation distance to these density peaks. To evaluate PeacoQC's cleaning capability, it was compared to three other existing quality control algorithms (flowAI, flowClean and flowCut) on a wide variety of datasets. In comparison to the other algorithms, PeacoQC was able to filter out all different types of anomalies in flow, mass and spectral cytometry data, while the other methods struggled with at least one type. In the quantitative comparison, PeacoQC obtained the highest median balanced accuracy and a similar running time compared to the other algorithms while having a better scalability for large files. To ensure that the parameters chosen in the PeacoQC algorithm are robust, the cleaning tool was run on 16 public datasets. After inspection, only one sample was found where the parameters should be further optimized. The other 15 datasets were analyzed correctly indicating a robust parameter choice. Overall, we present a fast and accurate quality control algorithm that outperforms existing tools and ensures high-quality data that can be used for further downstream analysis. An R implementation is available.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsData AccuracyFlow CytometryQuality Controlanomaly detectionautomated quality controldata preprocessingflow cytometrymass cytometryspectral cytometry

Identifiers

PMID34549881
PMCPMC9293479

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.