ArticleFrontiers in immunology2026
A context-aware interpretive framework for lymphocyte immunophenotyping by flow cytometry.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Flow cytometry-based immunophenotyping is a powerful tool in clinical and translational immunology; however, the interpretation of lymphocyte immunophenotype results remains incomplete, despite extensive methodological standardization. This challenge is particularly evident when phenotypically normal lymphocytes are quantified under non-physiological conditions, where numerical results are often interpreted using implicit and heterogeneous assumptions. Hypothesis: It is hypothesized that harmonization in flow cytometry-based lymphocyte immunophenotyping must extend beyond technical standardization and incorporate explicit, structured frameworks for biological and clinical interpretation for enumeration of phenotypically normal lymphocyte subsets. Implications: Five foundational guidelines are proposed for interpreting lymphocyte immunophenotypic enumeration: the non-equivalence of relative and absolute metrics, context-dependent relevance of immunophenotypic values, compartment-specific determination of meaning, analytical constraints imposed by assay architecture, and the impact of analytical variability on interpretative stability. By articulating principles that are already implicitly applied in expert practice, this framework complements existing technical guidelines and supports a more consistent, context-aware interpretation of lymphocyte immunophenotypes across diverse clinical and biological settings. Conclusion: By explicitly articulating principles that are typically implicit in expert practice, this framework complements existing technical guidelines and bridges the gap between technical and interpretative reproducibility. It provides a coherent structure for context-aware immunophenotypic interpretation and contributes to a shared conceptual language for the study of immunology and its clinical application.
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.