Automated Gating of CD34 + Cells in Cord Blood: Performance Evaluation of a Machine Learning-Based ISHAGE Protocol

IF 2.1 4区 生物学 Q3 BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS
Cytometry Part A Pub Date : 2026-03-18 Epub Date: 2026-02-20 DOI:10.1002/cyto.a.70017
Carl Simard, Diane Fournier, Patrick Trépanier
{"title":"Automated Gating of CD34\n + Cells in Cord Blood: Performance Evaluation of a Machine Learning-Based ISHAGE Protocol","authors":"Carl Simard,&nbsp;Diane Fournier,&nbsp;Patrick Trépanier","doi":"10.1002/cyto.a.70017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Precise quantification of cellular subsets is fundamental for qualifying grafts and supporting emerging therapies. CD34<sup>+</sup> enumeration in cord blood using the ISHAGE protocol exemplifies the operator variability inherent to manual gating. We evaluated whether a machine-learning approach could provide standardized automated enumeration and reduce variability. A machine-learning–based automatic gating algorithm was trained on 29 manually gated FCS files and applied to raw flow cytometry data. Performance was compared with manual gating from nine laboratories from a previously published multicenter study using <i>Z</i>-scores, rank positioning, absolute deviation, correlations, Bland–Altman analysis, and intraclass correlation coefficients. Across 12 samples, AI1 remained within ± 2 SD of the human consensus in all cases, whereas AI2 exceeded this threshold in two. AI1 consistently ranked closer to the human median and showed narrower deviations. Both models correlated strongly with manual gating (AI1: <i>r</i> = 0.991; AI2: <i>r</i> = 0.968). Bland–Altman analysis showed minimal bias and narrow limits of agreement for AI1 versus its human reference, while AI2 and human–human comparisons displayed greater variability. ICCs indicated high reliability across all comparisons, with the strongest agreement observed for AI1 versus Lab1 (ICC = 0.995). A machine learning–based automatic gating approach can reproduce expert CD34<sup>+</sup> enumeration with high fidelity. By reducing operator-dependent variability, this method may strengthen cytometry standardization across cord blood banking and broader cellular therapy workflows.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":11068,"journal":{"name":"Cytometry Part A","volume":"109 2","pages":"108-114"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cytometry Part A","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cyto.a.70017","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/2/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Precise quantification of cellular subsets is fundamental for qualifying grafts and supporting emerging therapies. CD34+ enumeration in cord blood using the ISHAGE protocol exemplifies the operator variability inherent to manual gating. We evaluated whether a machine-learning approach could provide standardized automated enumeration and reduce variability. A machine-learning–based automatic gating algorithm was trained on 29 manually gated FCS files and applied to raw flow cytometry data. Performance was compared with manual gating from nine laboratories from a previously published multicenter study using Z-scores, rank positioning, absolute deviation, correlations, Bland–Altman analysis, and intraclass correlation coefficients. Across 12 samples, AI1 remained within ± 2 SD of the human consensus in all cases, whereas AI2 exceeded this threshold in two. AI1 consistently ranked closer to the human median and showed narrower deviations. Both models correlated strongly with manual gating (AI1: r = 0.991; AI2: r = 0.968). Bland–Altman analysis showed minimal bias and narrow limits of agreement for AI1 versus its human reference, while AI2 and human–human comparisons displayed greater variability. ICCs indicated high reliability across all comparisons, with the strongest agreement observed for AI1 versus Lab1 (ICC = 0.995). A machine learning–based automatic gating approach can reproduce expert CD34+ enumeration with high fidelity. By reducing operator-dependent variability, this method may strengthen cytometry standardization across cord blood banking and broader cellular therapy workflows.

脐带血中CD34+细胞的自动门控:基于机器学习的ISHAGE协议的性能评估。
细胞亚群的精确定量是确定移植物和支持新兴疗法的基础。使用ISHAGE协议在脐带血中进行CD34+计数,体现了手动门控所固有的操作员可变性。我们评估了机器学习方法是否可以提供标准化的自动枚举和减少可变性。在29个人工门控FCS文件上训练了一种基于机器学习的自动门控算法,并将其应用于流式细胞术原始数据。采用z分数、等级定位、绝对偏差、相关性、Bland-Altman分析和类内相关系数对先前发表的多中心研究中9个实验室的人工门控进行了性能比较。在12个样本中,AI1在所有情况下都保持在人类共识的±2个标准差范围内,而AI2在两个情况下超过了这个阈值。AI1的排名始终更接近人类的中位数,并且显示出较小的偏差。两种模型都与人工门控有很强的相关性(AI1: r = 0.991; AI2: r = 0.968)。Bland-Altman分析显示,AI1与人类参考的偏差最小,一致性范围窄,而AI2和人与人之间的比较显示出更大的可变性。ICC在所有比较中显示高可靠性,AI1与Lab1的一致性最强(ICC = 0.995)。一种基于机器学习的自动门控方法可以高保真地再现专家CD34+枚举。通过减少操作者依赖的可变性,该方法可以加强脐带血银行和更广泛的细胞治疗工作流程的细胞测定标准化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cytometry Part A
Cytometry Part A 生物-生化研究方法
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
13.50%
发文量
183
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Cytometry Part A, the journal of quantitative single-cell analysis, features original research reports and reviews of innovative scientific studies employing quantitative single-cell measurement, separation, manipulation, and modeling techniques, as well as original articles on mechanisms of molecular and cellular functions obtained by cytometry techniques. The journal welcomes submissions from multiple research fields that fully embrace the study of the cytome: Biomedical Instrumentation Engineering Biophotonics Bioinformatics Cell Biology Computational Biology Data Science Immunology Parasitology Microbiology Neuroscience Cancer Stem Cells Tissue Regeneration.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书