John D FitzGerald, Chesca Barrios, Tairan Liu, Ann Rosenthal, Geraldine M McCarthy, Lillian Chen, Bijie Bai, Guangdong Ma, Aydogan Ozcan
{"title":"A Novel Polarized Light Microscope for the Examination of Birefringent Crystals in Synovial Fluid.","authors":"John D FitzGerald, Chesca Barrios, Tairan Liu, Ann Rosenthal, Geraldine M McCarthy, Lillian Chen, Bijie Bai, Guangdong Ma, Aydogan Ozcan","doi":"10.3390/gucdd2040022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The gold standard for crystal arthritis diagnosis relies on the identification of either monosodium urate (MSU) or calcium pyrophosphate (CPP) crystals in synovial fluid. With the goal of enhanced crystal detection, we adapted a standard compensated polarized light microscope (CPLM) with a polarized digital camera and multi-focal depth imaging capabilities to create digital images from synovial fluid mounted on microscope slides. Using this single-shot computational polarized light microscopy (SCPLM) method, we compared rates of crystal detection and raters' preference for image.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Microscope slides from patients with either CPP, MSU, or no crystals in synovial fluid were acquired using CPLM and SCPLM methodologies. Detection rate, sensitivity, and specificity were evaluated by presenting expert crystal raters with (randomly sorted) CPLM and SCPLM digital images, from FOV above clinical samples. For each FOV and each method, each rater was asked to identify crystal suspects and their level of certainty for each crystal suspect and crystal type (MSU vs. CPP).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For the 283 crystal suspects evaluated, SCPLM resulted in higher crystal detection rates than did CPLM, for both CPP (51%. vs. 28%) and MSU (78% vs. 46%) crystals. Similarly, sensitivity was greater for SCPLM for CPP (0.63 vs. 0.35) and MSU (0.88 vs. 0.52) without giving up much specificity resulting in higher AUC.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Subjective and objective measures of greater detection and higher certainty were observed for SCPLM over CPLM, particularly for CPP crystals. The digital data associated with these images can ultimately be incorporated into an automated crystal detection system that provides a quantitative report on crystal count, size, and morphology.</p>","PeriodicalId":520386,"journal":{"name":"Gout, urate, and crystal deposition disease","volume":"2 4","pages":"315-324"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11750256/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gout, urate, and crystal deposition disease","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/gucdd2040022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The gold standard for crystal arthritis diagnosis relies on the identification of either monosodium urate (MSU) or calcium pyrophosphate (CPP) crystals in synovial fluid. With the goal of enhanced crystal detection, we adapted a standard compensated polarized light microscope (CPLM) with a polarized digital camera and multi-focal depth imaging capabilities to create digital images from synovial fluid mounted on microscope slides. Using this single-shot computational polarized light microscopy (SCPLM) method, we compared rates of crystal detection and raters' preference for image.
Methods: Microscope slides from patients with either CPP, MSU, or no crystals in synovial fluid were acquired using CPLM and SCPLM methodologies. Detection rate, sensitivity, and specificity were evaluated by presenting expert crystal raters with (randomly sorted) CPLM and SCPLM digital images, from FOV above clinical samples. For each FOV and each method, each rater was asked to identify crystal suspects and their level of certainty for each crystal suspect and crystal type (MSU vs. CPP).
Results: For the 283 crystal suspects evaluated, SCPLM resulted in higher crystal detection rates than did CPLM, for both CPP (51%. vs. 28%) and MSU (78% vs. 46%) crystals. Similarly, sensitivity was greater for SCPLM for CPP (0.63 vs. 0.35) and MSU (0.88 vs. 0.52) without giving up much specificity resulting in higher AUC.
Conclusions: Subjective and objective measures of greater detection and higher certainty were observed for SCPLM over CPLM, particularly for CPP crystals. The digital data associated with these images can ultimately be incorporated into an automated crystal detection system that provides a quantitative report on crystal count, size, and morphology.
背景:晶状体关节炎诊断的金标准依赖于滑液中尿酸钠(MSU)或焦磷酸钙(CPP)晶体的鉴定。为了增强晶体检测,我们采用了标准的补偿偏振光显微镜(CPLM),配有偏振光数码相机和多焦深度成像功能,从安装在显微镜载玻片上的滑液中创建数字图像。利用这种单镜头计算偏振光显微镜(SCPLM)方法,我们比较了晶体检出率和评分者对图像的偏好。方法:采用CPLM和SCPLM方法对CPP、MSU或滑液无晶体患者的显微镜载玻片进行分析。通过向专家晶体评分员展示(随机排序的)CPLM和SCPLM数字图像来评估检出率、灵敏度和特异性,这些图像来自临床样本的FOV以上。对于每个视场和每种方法,每个评分者被要求识别晶体可疑点及其对每个晶体可疑点和晶体类型的确定程度(MSU vs. CPP)。结果:在283个疑似晶体中,SCPLM的晶体检出率高于CPLM,两种CPP的晶体检出率均为51%。对28%)和MSU晶体(78%对46%)。同样,SCPLM对CPP (0.63 vs. 0.35)和MSU (0.88 vs. 0.52)的敏感性更高,但没有放弃太多特异性,导致更高的AUC。结论:与CPLM相比,SCPLM的主观和客观测量结果的检出率更高,确定性更高,特别是对于CPP晶体。与这些图像相关的数字数据最终可以并入自动晶体检测系统,该系统提供晶体计数,大小和形态的定量报告。