Multidimensional immunophenotyping distinguishes patients with pES from patients with cITP. (A) PCA analysis depicting the clustering of patients based on the gated populations used in this study. Individuals are represented by small colored circles for each group, whereas overall group is represented by large colored circles. (B) Heat map showing relative similarities and differences of different patient groups based on defined flow parameters. (C-D) ROC curves showing percentage sensitivity and specificity for frequencies of cTfh and HLA-DR⁺CD38⁺ on effector memory CD4⁺ T cells between pES and cITP. (E) Table showing 4 immune parameters, their cutoffs, and scoring information. (F) Scoring of different patient groups based on the sum of 4 immune parameters in HCs (n = 24), patients with pES (n = 22), and patients with cITP (n = 22). Data represent median and 95% confidence interval for each group. Kruskal-Wallis 1-way ANOVA followed by Dunn’s multiple comparison test was used for statistical comparison. *P < .05; **P < .01; ***P < .001; ****P < .0001; ns, not significant.