Diagnostic performance and heterogeneity of validated flow cytometry scores: a systematic review

values were consistently high for sensitivity and, in two cases, also for specificity, indicating high heterogeneity. To explain this variability, we systematically reviewed study methods and identified 31 potential sources of heterogeneity, spanning study design, pre-analytical, analytical, and post-analytical factors. In conclusion, few flow cytometry scores have been validated, most only in limited cohorts, and their reported diagnostic performance varies widely. While numerous potential sources of variability can be identified, the small number of available studies prevents reliable quantification of their impact. Published accuracy estimates should therefore not be accepted at face value, and proposed scores should be validated in-house before being adopted into diagnostic practice.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences
Published
2026-04-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/10408363.2026.2651313
Primary Topic
Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Diagnostic performance and heterogeneity of validated flow cytometry scores: a systematic review

Marc Sorigué
Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences
Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
article

Diagnostic performance and heterogeneity of validated flow cytometry scores: a systematic review

Marc Sorigué
article en

Abstract

values were consistently high for sensitivity and, in two cases, also for specificity, indicating high heterogeneity. To explain this variability, we systematically reviewed study methods and identified 31 potential sources of heterogeneity, spanning study design, pre-analytical, analytical, and post-analytical factors. In conclusion, few flow cytometry scores have been validated, most only in limited cohorts, and their reported diagnostic performance varies widely. While numerous potential sources of variability can be identified, the small number of available studies prevents reliable quantification of their impact. Published accuracy estimates should therefore not be accepted at face value, and proposed scores should be validated in-house before being adopted into diagnostic practice.

Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences
Trinity Health (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 19%
Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.