Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27594698›Full record

ArticleMethods (San Diego, Calif.)2017

An open-source solution for advanced imaging flow cytometry data analysis using machine learning.

Holger Hennig, Paul Rees, Thomas Blasi, Lee Kamentsky, Jane Hung, David Dao, Anne E Carpenter, Andrew Filby

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Methods (San Diego, Calif.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed
–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

51 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Artificial intelligence in imaging flow cytometry.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2023
    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.

Holger HennigImaging Platform at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, 415 Main St, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA; Dept. of Systems Biology & Bioinformatics, University of Rostock, 18051 Rostock, Germany; College of Engineering, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK.
Paul ReesImaging Platform at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, 415 Main St, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA; College of Engineering, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK.
Thomas BlasiHelmholtz Zentrum München - German Research Center for Environmental Health, Institute of Computational Biology, 85764 Neuherberg, Germany.
Lee KamentskyImaging Platform at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, 415 Main St, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA.
Jane HungImaging Platform at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, 415 Main St, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA.
David DaoImaging Platform at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, 415 Main St, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA.
Anne E CarpenterImaging Platform at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, 415 Main St, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA.
Andrew FilbyFlow Cytometry Core Facility, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK. Electronic address: Andrew.Filby@newcastle.ac.uk.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/N005163/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Imaging flow cytometry (IFC) enables the high throughput collection of morphological and spatial information from hundreds of thousands of single cells. This high content, information rich image data can in theory resolve important biological differences among complex, often heterogeneous biological samples. However, data analysis is often performed in a highly manual and subjective manner using very limited image analysis techniques in combination with conventional flow cytometry gating strategies. This approach is not scalable to the hundreds of available image-based features per cell and thus makes use of only a fraction of the spatial and morphometric information. As a result, the quality, reproducibility and rigour of results are limited by the skill, experience and ingenuity of the data analyst. Here, we describe a pipeline using open-source software that leverages the rich information in digital imagery using machine learning algorithms. Compensated and corrected raw image files (.rif) data files from an imaging flow cytometer (the proprietary .cif file format) are imported into the open-source software CellProfiler, where an image processing pipeline identifies cells and subcellular compartments allowing hundreds of morphological features to be measured. This high-dimensional data can then be analysed using cutting-edge machine learning and clustering approaches using "user-friendly" platforms such as CellProfiler Analyst. Researchers can train an automated cell classifier to recognize different cell types, cell cycle phases, drug treatment/control conditions, etc., using supervised machine learning. This workflow should enable the scientific community to leverage the full analytical power of IFC-derived data sets. It will help to reveal otherwise unappreciated populations of cells based on features that may be hidden to the human eye that include subtle measured differences in label free detection channels such as bright-field and dark-field imagery.

Indexed as

Machine LearningCell CountFlow CytometryHumansImage CytometryImage Processing, Computer-AssistedInterphaseJurkat CellsMitosisReproducibility of ResultsSoftwareWorkflowFeature selectionHigh-throughputImaging flow cytometryMachine learningOpen-source softwareProfiling

Identifiers

PMID27594698
PMCPMC5231320

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.