Abstract
Flow cytometry is a commonly used diagnostic technique for haematological malignancies. The gold standard method for analysis of flow cytometry data is manual gating, which is time consuming and requires a highly skilled operator, generating a bottleneck in the workflow and potentially increasing time to diagnose malignancy. For nearly 20 years attempts have been made at replacing manual analysis with automated algorithms, however these are not deemed accurate enough for clinical practice. Clustering methods have been the focus of previous automated attempts, though supervised methods have been shown to be more accurate and require less manual intervention. Tree-based classification algorithms make decisions using an analogous process to manual gating. One hundred and fifty-two flow cytometry files were generated from peripheral blood samples of patients with suspected haematological malignancies. A trained operator labelled events in these files as one of nine cell types. CART, Random Forest and XGBoost were trained on the labelled dataset and the performance was evaluated against previously published clustering methods. Classification algorithms showed higher mean F1 scores than clustering methods. There was no significant difference between CART, Random Forest and XGBoost mean F1 scores, and all three algorithms showed mean prediction times per sample of less than 25 seconds. Tree-based methods struggled to differentiate B cell subtypes, which show similar phenotypic signatures and present an area for future improvement. This work demonstrates the effectiveness of tree-based classification algorithms for flow cytometry analysis. Overall, CART may offer a solution to automated flow cytometry analysis for the purpose of haematological malignancies due to showing high agreement with manual analysis, and short prediction and training times.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
AR was funded by a Ph.D. studentship funded by the MRC DiMeN Doctoral Training Partnership.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics committee of the University of Liverpool, Health Research Authority, and Health and Care Research Wales gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Code for running experiments is available on GitHub (https://github.com/alex-rothwell/classification_evaluation_flow_cytometry). Patient data is unavailable due to ethical restrictions imposed by IRAS.
https://github.com/alex-rothwell/classification_evaluation_flow_cytometry