↓ Skip to main content

Critical assessment of automated flow cytometry data analysis techniques

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Methods, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
23 X users
patent
1 patent
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
507 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
728 Mendeley
citeulike
10 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Critical assessment of automated flow cytometry data analysis techniques
Published in
Nature Methods, February 2013
DOI 10.1038/nmeth.2365
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nima Aghaeepour, Greg Finak, Holger Hoos, Tim R Mosmann, Ryan Brinkman, Raphael Gottardo, Richard H Scheuermann

Abstract

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 728 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 14 2%
Germany 3 <1%
France 3 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Other 5 <1%
Unknown 692 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 183 25%
Researcher 172 24%
Student > Master 73 10%
Student > Bachelor 50 7%
Other 45 6%
Other 107 15%
Unknown 98 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 205 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 77 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 72 10%
Computer Science 69 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 52 7%
Other 134 18%
Unknown 119 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 May 2022.
All research outputs
#793,474
of 23,863,389 outputs
Outputs from Nature Methods
#1,048
of 5,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,986
of 291,788 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Methods
#10
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,863,389 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,079 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 291,788 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.