Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 378

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of clustering methods for high‐dimensional single‐cell flow and mass cytometry data

Open access
Weber, Lukas M., Robinson, Mark D.·2016·Cytometry Part A

Abstract

Recent technological developments in high‐dimensional flow cytometry and mass cytometry (CyTOF) have made it possible to detect expression levels of dozens of protein markers in thousands of cells per second, allowing cell populations to be characterized in unprecedented detail. Traditional data analysis by “manual gating” can be inefficient and unreliable in these high‐dimensional settings, which has led to the development of a large number of automated analysis methods. Methods designed for unsupervised analysis use specialized clustering algorithms to detect and define cell populations for further downstream analysis. Here, we have performed an up‐to‐date, extensible performance comparison of clustering methods for high‐dimensional flow and mass cytometry data. We evaluated methods using several publicly available data sets from experiments in immunology, containing both major and rare cell populations, with cell population identities from expert manual gating as the reference standard. Several methods performed well, including FlowSOM, X‐shift, PhenoGraph, Rclusterpp, and flowMeans. Among these, FlowSOM had extremely fast runtimes, making this method well‐suited for interactive, exploratory analysis of large, high‐dimensional data sets on a standard laptop or desktop computer. These results extend previously published comparisons by focusing on high‐dimensional data and including new methods developed for CyTOF data. R scripts to reproduce all analyses are available from GitHub ( https://github.com/lmweber/cytometry-clustering-comparison ), and pre‐processed data files are available from FlowRepository (FR‐FCM‐ZZPH), allowing our comparisons to be extended to include new clustering methods and reference data sets. © 2016 The Authors. Cytometry Part A published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of ISAC.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cyto.a.23030

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 378

Metadata

Authors
Weber, L. M., & Robinson, M. D.
Venue
Cytometry Part A
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-12
Volume
89
Issue
12
Pages
1084-1096
ISSN
  • 1552-4922 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-4930
OpenAlex
W2951566836
Cited by
378
References
3
FWCI
18.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of clustering methods for high‐dimensional single‐cell flow and mass cytometry data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cyto.a.23030
The paper
Weber, L. M., & Robinson, M. D. (2016). Comparison of clustering methods for high‐dimensional single‐cell flow and mass cytometry data. Cytometry Part A. https://doi.org/10.1002/cyto.a.23030

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.