Suggestions(1)
Exact(11)
To compare MLC-GFP expression across different treatments, we classified cells into 3 phenotypic categories.
In accordance with previous studies [63], we therefore classified cells as simple when their relative modulation was >1 and complex when their relative modulation was <1.
We classified cells based on their response to the first stimulation pulse into four categories (Fig. 4): Cells that did not reach firing threshold (n = 4), sparse firing (1 30 APs; n = 5), train firing (>30 APs, n = 6), and cells entering depolarization block (n = 7).
We classified cells as positive for annexin V only (Ann V + positivesitive for PI only (Ann V- positivesitive for both markers (Ann V + PI+) or unlabeled.
We blindly classified cells with the Pacific Blue channel turned off, and then compared our identifications with the marker protein patterns.
We classified cells as Onset (47.7%), Onset-late (40.2%) and Sustained (11.9%) using the time pattern characteristics of responses to CF stimuli (Irvine & Gago, 1990).
Similar(49)
As an example cases, pathway based method, PEPC, precisely classified cell types of query profile GSM18935 of thalamus cell type with overall search database (Table 1) and query profile GSM12641 of liver cell type with cross-platform search database (Table 2) while CGSEP failed.
For example, the RCS only uses the cross-classified cells containing at least 20 observations.
We computed the reclassification calibration statistic (RCS) [ 20] which is equivalent to the Hosmer Lemeshow statistic, applied to the cross-classified cells of the reclassification table with at least 20 observations.
The person-year-weighted mean cumulative exposure in each cross-classified cell was used in the regression analysis.
Support vector machine (SVM) classifiers were trained (MATLAB function svmtrain using well-level data and then used to classify cell-level data (svmclassify. The fraction of individual cells per well per classified group was calculated.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com