Critical assessment of automated flow cytometry data analysis techniques

In this analysis, the authors directly compared the performance of flow cytometry data processing algorithms to manual gating approaches. The results offer information of practical utility about the performance of the algorithms as applied to different data sets and challenges. Traditional methods f...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Nature methods 2013-03, Vol.10 (3), p.228-238
Hauptverfasser: Aghaeepour, Nima, Finak, Greg, Hoos, Holger, Mosmann, Tim R, Brinkman, Ryan, Gottardo, Raphael, Scheuermann, Richard H
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:In this analysis, the authors directly compared the performance of flow cytometry data processing algorithms to manual gating approaches. The results offer information of practical utility about the performance of the algorithms as applied to different data sets and challenges. 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.
ISSN:1548-7091
1548-7105
DOI:10.1038/nmeth.2365