ArticleThe annals of applied statistics2023
TEAM: A MULTIPLE TESTING ALGORITHM ON THE AGGREGATION TREE FOR FLOW CYTOMETRY ANALYSIS.
Article in The annals of applied statistics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tree-based differential testing using inferential uncertainty for RNA-seq.Genome research · 2025Article
- Tree-based differential testing using inferential uncertainty for RNA-Seq.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- DYNATE: Localizing rare-variant association regions via multiple testing embedded in an aggregation tree.Genetic epidemiology · 2024Article
- TEAM: A MULTIPLE TESTING ALGORITHM ON THE AGGREGATION TREE FOR FLOW CYTOMETRY ANALYSIS.The annals of applied statistics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In immunology studies, flow cytometry is a commonly used multivariate single-cell assay. One key goal in flow cytometry analysis is to detect the immune cells responsive to certain stimuli. Statistically, this problem can be translated into comparing two protein expression probability density functions (pdfs) before and after the stimulus; the goal is to pinpoint the regions where these two pdfs differ. Further screening of these differential regions can be performed to identify enriched sets of responsive cells. In this paper, we model identifying differential density regions as a multiple testing problem. First, we partition the sample space into small bins. In each bin, we form a hypothesis to test the existence of differential pdfs. Second, we develop a novel multiple testing method, called TEAM (Testing on the Aggregation tree Method), to identify those bins that harbor differential pdfs while controlling the false discovery rate (FDR) under the desired level. TEAM embeds the testing procedure into an aggregation tree to test from fine- to coarse-resolution. The procedure achieves the statistical goal of pinpointing density differences to the smallest possible regions. TEAM is computationally efficient, capable of analyzing large flow cytometry data sets in much shorter time compared with competing methods. We applied TEAM and competing methods on a flow cytometry data set to identify T cells responsive to the cytomegalovirus (CMV)-pp65 antigen stimulation. With additional downstream screening, TEAM successfully identified enriched sets containing monofunctional, bifunctional, and polyfunctional T cells. Competing methods either did not finish in a reasonable time frame or provided less interpretable results. Numerical simulations and theoretical justifications demonstrate that TEAM has asymptotically valid, powerful, and robust performance. Overall, TEAM is a computationally efficient and statistically powerful algorithm that can yield meaningful biological insights in flow cytometry studies.
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.