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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Hematopoiesis: An Evolving Paradigm for Stem Cell Biology
Orkin, S. H., & Zon, L. I. (2008) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2008.01.025 · Cited by 2,570
Bendall, S. C., Simonds, E. F., Qiu, P., Amir, E.-A. D., Krutzik, P. O., Finck, R., Bruggner, R. V., Melamed, R., Trejo, A., Ornatsky, O. I., et al. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1198704 · Cited by 2,279
Extracting a cellular hierarchy from high-dimensional cytometry data with SPADE
Qiu, P., Simonds, E. F., Bendall, S. C., Gibbs, K. D., Bruggner, R. V., Linderman, M. D., Sachs, K., Nolan, G. P., & Plevritis, S. K. (2011) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.1991 · Cited by 956
Cited by
Current best practices in single-cell RNA-seq analysis: a tutorial
Luecken, M. D., & Theis, F. J. (2019) · Molecular Systems Biology · doi:10.15252/msb.20188746 · Cited by 2,231
Eleven grand challenges in single-cell data science
Lähnemann, D., Köster, J., Szczurek, E., McCarthy, D. J., Hicks, S. C., Robinson, M. D., Vallejos, C. A., Campbell, K. R., Beerenwinkel, N., Mahfouz, A., et al. (2020) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/s13059-020-1926-6 · Cited by 1,327
Self-citationHigh-dimensional single-cell analysis predicts response to anti-PD-1 immunotherapy
Krieg, C., Nowicka, M., Guglietta, S., Schindler, S., Hartmann, F. J., Weber, L. M., Dummer, R., Robinson, M. D., Levesque, M. P., & Becher, B. (2018) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/nm.4466 · Cited by 735
Self-citationhistoCAT: analysis of cell phenotypes and interactions in multiplex image cytometry data
Schapiro, D., Jackson, H. W., Raghuraman, S., Fischer, J. R., Zanotelli, V. R. T., Schulz, D., Giesen, C., Catena, R., Varga, Z., & Bodenmiller, B. (2017) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.4391 · Cited by 659
Multiplexed protein maps link subcellular organization to cellular states
Gut, G., Herrmann, M. D., & Pelkmans, L. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aar7042 · Cited by 510
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.