Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36997576›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Label-free macrophage phenotype classification using machine learning methods.

Tetiana Hourani, Alexis Perez-Gonzalez, Khashayar Khoshmanesh, Rodney Luwor, Adrian A Achuthan, Sara Baratchi, Neil M O'Brien-Simpson, Akram Al-Hourani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Oncoimmunology · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Cell-Based Immuno-Biosensors Using Microfluidics.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Innate Immune Memory is Stimulus Specific.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Tetiana HouraniDepartment of Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3050, Australia.
Alexis Perez-GonzalezMelbourne Cytometry Platform, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, The University of Melbourne, at The Peter Doherty Institute of Infection and Immunity, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia.
Khashayar KhoshmaneshSchool of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, 3000, Australia.
Rodney LuworDepartment of Surgery, Royal Melbourne Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, 3050, Australia.
Adrian A AchuthanDepartment of Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3050, Australia.
Sara BaratchiSchool of Health & Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Bundoora, Victoria, 3083, Australia.
Neil M O'Brien-SimpsonACTV Research Group, Division of Basic and Clinical Oral Sciences, Centre for Oral Health Research, Melbourne Dental School, Royal Dental Hospital, The University of Melbourne, 720 Swanston Street, Carlton, VIC, 3010, Australia.
Akram Al-HouraniSchool of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, 3000, Australia. akram.hourani@rmit.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Macrophages are heterogeneous innate immune cells that are functionally shaped by their surrounding microenvironment. Diverse macrophage populations have multifaceted differences related to their morphology, metabolism, expressed markers, and functions, where the identification of the different phenotypes is of an utmost importance in modelling immune response. While expressed markers are the most used signature to classify phenotypes, multiple reports indicate that macrophage morphology and autofluorescence are also valuable clues that can be used in the identification process. In this work, we investigated macrophage autofluorescence as a distinct feature for classifying six different macrophage phenotypes, namely: M0, M1, M2a, M2b, M2c, and M2d. The identification was based on extracted signals from multi-channel/multi-wavelength flow cytometer. To achieve the identification, we constructed a dataset containing 152,438 cell events each having a response vector of 45 optical signals fingerprint. Based on this dataset, we applied different supervised machine learning methods to detect phenotype specific fingerprint from the response vector, where the fully connected neural network architecture provided the highest classification accuracy of 75.8% for the six phenotypes compared simultaneously. Furthermore, by restricting the number of phenotypes in the experiment, the proposed framework produces higher classification accuracies, averaging 92.0%, 91.9%, 84.2%, and 80.4% for a pool of two, three, four, five phenotypes, respectively. These results indicate the potential of the intrinsic autofluorescence for classifying macrophage phenotypes, with the proposed method being quick, simple, and cost-effective way to accelerate the discovery of macrophage phenotypical diversity.

Indexed as

Machine LearningMacrophagesPhenotype

Identifiers

PMID36997576
PMCPMC10061362

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.