↓ Skip to main content

Multivariate Analysis of Flow Cytometric Data Using Decision Trees

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
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
Multivariate Analysis of Flow Cytometric Data Using Decision Trees
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2012.00114
Pubmed ID
Authors

Svenja Simon, Reinhard Guthke, Thomas Kamradt, Oliver Frey

Abstract

Characterization of the response of the host immune system is important in understanding the bidirectional interactions between the host and microbial pathogens. For research on the host site, flow cytometry has become one of the major tools in immunology. Advances in technology and reagents allow now the simultaneous assessment of multiple markers on a single cell level generating multidimensional data sets that require multivariate statistical analysis. We explored the explanatory power of the supervised machine learning method called "induction of decision trees" in flow cytometric data. In order to examine whether the production of a certain cytokine is depended on other cytokines, datasets from intracellular staining for six cytokines with complex patterns of co-expression were analyzed by induction of decision trees. After weighting the data according to their class probabilities, we created a total of 13,392 different decision trees for each given cytokine with different parameter settings. For a more realistic estimation of the decision trees' quality, we used stratified fivefold cross validation and chose the "best" tree according to a combination of different quality criteria. While some of the decision trees reflected previously known co-expression patterns, we found that the expression of some cytokines was not only dependent on the co-expression of others per se, but was also dependent on the intensity of expression. Thus, for the first time we successfully used induction of decision trees for the analysis of high dimensional flow cytometric data and demonstrated the feasibility of this method to reveal structural patterns in such data sets.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Czechia 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 42 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 25%
Researcher 9 20%
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 23%
Engineering 7 16%
Computer Science 5 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 8 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 April 2012.
All research outputs
#20,169,675
of 22,681,577 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#22,075
of 24,478 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,189
of 244,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#228
of 317 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,681,577 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,478 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 244,101 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 317 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.