Mendamar Ravzanaadii, Yuki Horiuchi, Yosuke Iwasaki, Akihiko Matsuzaki, Kimiko Kaniyu, Jing Bai, Aya Konishi, Jun Ando, Miki Ando, Yoko Tabe
{"title":"Robustness assessment of an automated AI-based white blood cell morphometric analysis system using different smear preparation methods","authors":"Mendamar Ravzanaadii, Yuki Horiuchi, Yosuke Iwasaki, Akihiko Matsuzaki, Kimiko Kaniyu, Jing Bai, Aya Konishi, Jun Ando, Miki Ando, Yoko Tabe","doi":"10.1111/ijlh.14350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Numerous AI-based systems are being developed to evaluate peripheral blood (PB) smears, but the feasibility of these systems on different smear preparation methods has not been fully understood. In this study, we assessed the impact of different smear preparation methods on the robustness of the deep learning system (DLS).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We collected 193 PB samples from patients, preparing a pair of smears for each sample using two systems: (1) SP50 smears, prepared by the DLS recommended fully automated slide preparation with double fan drying and staining (May–Grunwald Giemsa, M–G) system using SP50 (Sysmex) and (2) SP1000i smears, prepared by automated smear preparation with single fan drying by SP1000i (Sysmex) and manually stained with M–G. Digital images of PB cells were captured using DI-60 (Sysmex), and the DLS performed cell classification. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were used to evaluate the performance of the DLS.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The specificity and NPV for all cell types were 97.4%–100% in both smear sets. The average sensitivity and PPV were 88.9% and 90.1% on SP50 smears, and 87.0% and 83.2% on SP1000i smears, respectively. The lower performance on SP1000i smears was attributed to the intra-lineage misclassification of neutrophil precursors and inter-lineage misclassification of lymphocytes.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The DLS demonstrated consistent performance in specificity and NPV for smears prepared by a system different from the recommended method. Our results suggest that applying an automated smear preparation system optimized for the DLS system may be important.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":14120,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Laboratory Hematology","volume":"46 6","pages":"1021-1028"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Laboratory Hematology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijlh.14350","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction
Numerous AI-based systems are being developed to evaluate peripheral blood (PB) smears, but the feasibility of these systems on different smear preparation methods has not been fully understood. In this study, we assessed the impact of different smear preparation methods on the robustness of the deep learning system (DLS).
Methods
We collected 193 PB samples from patients, preparing a pair of smears for each sample using two systems: (1) SP50 smears, prepared by the DLS recommended fully automated slide preparation with double fan drying and staining (May–Grunwald Giemsa, M–G) system using SP50 (Sysmex) and (2) SP1000i smears, prepared by automated smear preparation with single fan drying by SP1000i (Sysmex) and manually stained with M–G. Digital images of PB cells were captured using DI-60 (Sysmex), and the DLS performed cell classification. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were used to evaluate the performance of the DLS.
Results
The specificity and NPV for all cell types were 97.4%–100% in both smear sets. The average sensitivity and PPV were 88.9% and 90.1% on SP50 smears, and 87.0% and 83.2% on SP1000i smears, respectively. The lower performance on SP1000i smears was attributed to the intra-lineage misclassification of neutrophil precursors and inter-lineage misclassification of lymphocytes.
Conclusion
The DLS demonstrated consistent performance in specificity and NPV for smears prepared by a system different from the recommended method. Our results suggest that applying an automated smear preparation system optimized for the DLS system may be important.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Laboratory Hematology provides a forum for the communication of new developments, research topics and the practice of laboratory haematology.
The journal publishes invited reviews, full length original articles, and correspondence.
The International Journal of Laboratory Hematology is the official journal of the International Society for Laboratory Hematology, which addresses the following sub-disciplines: cellular analysis, flow cytometry, haemostasis and thrombosis, molecular diagnostics, haematology informatics, haemoglobinopathies, point of care testing, standards and guidelines.
The journal was launched in 2006 as the successor to Clinical and Laboratory Hematology, which was first published in 1979. An active and positive editorial policy ensures that work of a high scientific standard is reported, in order to bridge the gap between practical and academic aspects of laboratory haematology.