ArticlePloS one2023
Reproducibility in cytometry: Signals analysis and its connection to uncertainty quantification.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Label-Free and High-Throughput Quantification of Nanoparticle-Cell Interactions at the Single-Cell Level with Flow Cytometry.Analytical chemistry · 2026Article
- Spatial Encoding with Amplitude Modulation in Serial Flow Cytometry.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Estimating particle size and velocity from fluorescence pulses: A practical validation study of flow cytometry signals analysis.PloS one · 2026Article
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
Signals analysis for cytometry remains a challenging task that has a significant impact on uncertainty. Conventional cytometers assume that individual measurements are well characterized by simple properties such as the signal area, width, and height. However, these approaches have difficulty distinguishing inherent biological variability from instrument artifacts and operating conditions. As a result, it is challenging to quantify uncertainty in the properties of individual cells and perform tasks such as doublet deconvolution. We address these problems via signals analysis techniques that use scale transformations to: (I) separate variation in biomarker expression from effects due to flow conditions and particle size; (II) quantify reproducibility associated with a given laser interrogation region; (III) estimate uncertainty in measurement values on a per-event basis; and (IV) extract the singlets that make up a multiplet. The key idea behind this approach is to model how variable operating conditions deform the signal shape and then use constrained optimization to "undo" these deformations for measured signals; residuals to this process characterize reproducibility. Using a recently developed microfluidic cytometer, we demonstrate that these techniques can account for instrument and measurand induced variability with a residual uncertainty of less than 2.5% in the signal shape and less than 1% in integrated area.
Indexed as
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.