ArticleAnalytical chemistry2025
Comparative Analysis of Sample Loop and Counting Bead-Based Methods for Size-Dependent Bias in Flow Cytometry.
Article in Analytical chemistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reliable and accurate particle number concentration measurements are essential across various fields, including clinical diagnostics, environmental monitoring, and industrial applications. Flow cytometry is widely used for these measurements, where the use of counting beads is a common approach. However, this method can introduce size-dependent bias when the target particles differ in size from the counting beads. To evaluate size-dependent bias, this study systematically compares the conventional counting bead-based method with a sample loop-based method that relies on total counting with a defined sample volume. Experimental results show that while both methods yield similar concentrations for beads of comparable size, discrepancies arise when there are significant size differences between the counting beads and target particles. To investigate the cause of this bias, simulations based on force balance analysis were conducted, revealing that larger beads experience stronger forces that facilitate their movement toward the detection area, while smaller beads are more influenced by Brownian motion, which impedes their overall motion. These findings provide a mechanistic explanation for the observed size-dependent bias, confirming that differences in hydrodynamic behavior contribute to variations in bead distribution and motion. By using the sample loop method, which minimizes size-dependent bias, and employing an empirical equation derived from the results, this study offers a reliable approach for predicting and mitigating bias in particle concentration measurements. This work therefore contributes to the development of more precise and traceable methods for particle number concentration measurement, with implications for a wide range of biological and industrial applications.
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.