Cited by 155Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlT-cell and B-cell ImmunologyAdvanced Biosensing Techniques and Applications

A model for harmonizing flow cytometry in clinical trials

Open access
the FOCIS Human Immunophenotyping Consortium, Maecker, Holden T, McCoy, J Philip·2010·Nature Immunology

Abstract

Complexities in sample handling, instrument setup and data analysis are barriers to the effective use of flow cytometry to monitor immunological parameters in clinical trials. The novel use of a central laboratory may help mitigate these issues.

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 · 10.1038/ni1110-975

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Individual laboratories typically experience ~20% CV in data analysis, whereas a central laboratory shows ~4% variance.

    “Inter-laboratory variations are also an issue, with Maecker et al. having reported that individual laboratories typically experience a ~20% CV in the data analysis, whereas data from a central laboratory only shows a variance of ~4% [19].”

    From Guidelines for the use of flow cytometry and cell sorting in immunological studies (third edition) (2021) · cites this paper as [19]

    In “Instrument setup and data analysis issues,” the paper reports mean coefficients of variation of 20.5% for individual-laboratory analyses and 4% for central analysis. Those figures come from one multisite standardization study of four samples, so the claim that laboratories *typically* experience those levels goes beyond what the passage establishes. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
the FOCIS Human Immunophenotyping Consortium, Maecker, H. T., & McCoy, J. P.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Maecker, Holden T
Venue
Nature Immunology
Published
2010-10-19
Volume
11
Issue
11
Pages
975-978
ISSN
  • 1529-2908 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2916
OpenAlex
W1497374306
Cited by
155
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 14
FWCI
8.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Immunology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • DukeSpace (Duke University) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (Z99 HL999999)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (Z01HL005905, ZICHL005905)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › T-cell and B-cell Immunology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Advanced Biosensing Techniques and Applications
Keywords
flow cytometry, clinical trials, harmonization, central laboratory, sample handling, instrument setup, data analysis, immune monitoring, standardization
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Flow Cytometry, Humans, Specimen Handling

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