I don't follow your hang up about classification systems. Different systems are good for different purposes. There is no reason one is better than any other, in

I don't follow your hang up about classification systems. Different systems are good for different purposes. There is no reason one is better than any other, in general. You are asking for something that makes no sense. EG, which is better: a winter coat or a hoody? It depends on the situation. You can use either of them, both of them together, or something else entirely. For the purpose of my example, use whatever system SEER uses since that is the biggest database of cancer data. >"You sound like a phycisist who thinks he can explain the world in terms of spherical cows, asserting a shit-ton of stuff without clear back-up as to why what you state is true, acting as if all kinds of nuanced issues are simple and/or solved problems, and assuming authority over a field you do not seem to be part of." I am saying literally count cells, how many are there that look like x, y, and z? Classify x, y, z however it is already being done in the clinic, if there is more than one method... then use more than one method. Each method probably has its advantages and drawbacks. What assumptions are you talking about? I am making pretty much none. Sit there, count the cells to the best of your ability, that's it. In fact the currently proposed project is going to be making all sorts of assumptions behind the various assays. Each of these makes the data more questionable. That is why I want basic stuff like # of cells that is least likely to be messed up.