Skip to main content

Critical assessment of automated flow cytometry data analysis techniques.

Publication ,  Journal Article
Aghaeepour, N; Finak, G; FlowCAP Consortium, ; DREAM Consortium, ; Hoos, H; Mosmann, TR; Brinkman, R; Gottardo, R; Scheuermann, RH
Published in: Nat Methods
March 2013

Traditional methods for flow cytometry (FCM) data processing rely on subjective manual gating. Recently, several groups have developed computational methods for identifying cell populations in multidimensional FCM data. The Flow Cytometry: Critical Assessment of Population Identification Methods (FlowCAP) challenges were established to compare the performance of these methods on two tasks: (i) mammalian cell population identification, to determine whether automated algorithms can reproduce expert manual gating and (ii) sample classification, to determine whether analysis pipelines can identify characteristics that correlate with external variables (such as clinical outcome). This analysis presents the results of the first FlowCAP challenges. Several methods performed well as compared to manual gating or external variables using statistical performance measures, which suggests that automated methods have reached a sufficient level of maturity and accuracy for reliable use in FCM data analysis.

Duke Scholars

Altmetric Attention Stats
Dimensions Citation Stats

Published In

Nat Methods

DOI

EISSN

1548-7105

Publication Date

March 2013

Volume

10

Issue

3

Start / End Page

228 / 238

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • West Nile Fever
  • Software
  • Sensitivity and Specificity
  • Reproducibility of Results
  • Lymphoma, Large B-Cell, Diffuse
  • Leukocytes, Mononuclear
  • Image Processing, Computer-Assisted
  • Humans
  • Graft vs Host Disease
  • Flow Cytometry
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Aghaeepour, N., Finak, G., FlowCAP Consortium, ., DREAM Consortium, ., Hoos, H., Mosmann, T. R., … Scheuermann, R. H. (2013). Critical assessment of automated flow cytometry data analysis techniques. Nat Methods, 10(3), 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2365
Aghaeepour, Nima, Greg Finak, Greg FlowCAP Consortium, Greg DREAM Consortium, Holger Hoos, Tim R. Mosmann, Ryan Brinkman, Raphael Gottardo, and Richard H. Scheuermann. “Critical assessment of automated flow cytometry data analysis techniques.Nat Methods 10, no. 3 (March 2013): 228–38. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2365.
Aghaeepour N, Finak G, FlowCAP Consortium, DREAM Consortium, Hoos H, Mosmann TR, et al. Critical assessment of automated flow cytometry data analysis techniques. Nat Methods. 2013 Mar;10(3):228–38.
Aghaeepour, Nima, et al. “Critical assessment of automated flow cytometry data analysis techniques.Nat Methods, vol. 10, no. 3, Mar. 2013, pp. 228–38. Pubmed, doi:10.1038/nmeth.2365.
Aghaeepour N, Finak G, FlowCAP Consortium, DREAM Consortium, Hoos H, Mosmann TR, Brinkman R, Gottardo R, Scheuermann RH. Critical assessment of automated flow cytometry data analysis techniques. Nat Methods. 2013 Mar;10(3):228–238.

Published In

Nat Methods

DOI

EISSN

1548-7105

Publication Date

March 2013

Volume

10

Issue

3

Start / End Page

228 / 238

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • West Nile Fever
  • Software
  • Sensitivity and Specificity
  • Reproducibility of Results
  • Lymphoma, Large B-Cell, Diffuse
  • Leukocytes, Mononuclear
  • Image Processing, Computer-Assisted
  • Humans
  • Graft vs Host Disease
  • Flow Cytometry