Comparison of an automated digital cell morphology analysis system with manual counting

iLABMED Pub Date : 2023-05-17 DOI:10.1002/ila2.10

Juan Jiao, Xin Yin, Jiali Ma, Yinglong Xia, Jianxia Xu, Shaozhe Zhao, Jie Liu

{"title":"Comparison of an automated digital cell morphology analysis system with manual counting","authors":"Juan Jiao, Xin Yin, Jiali Ma, Yinglong Xia, Jianxia Xu, Shaozhe Zhao, Jie Liu","doi":"10.1002/ila2.10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Bionovation's CSFA800 is a new automated digital cell imaging analyzer. We evaluated the performance of the CSFA800 by comparing it with artificial peripheral blood white blood cell counting.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>According to inclusion and exclusion criteria, 131 randomly selected samples (77 abnormal samples and 54 normal samples) were compared. Correlations between automated and manual counting results were analyzed. Manual counting was carried out according to the guidelines of the Association of Clinical and Laboratory Standards.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Counts of neutrophils, lymphocytes, monocytes, eosinophils, basophils, and immature granulocytes obtained from CSFA800 and artificial methods were linearly and positively correlated, with <i>R</i> values of 0.73, 0.65, 0.24, 0.2, 0.4, and 0.63, respectively, all <i>p</i> < 0.05. Therefore, correlations between CSFA800 and manual counting are acceptable. Compared with the DI-60 Automated Digital Cell Morphology System (DI-60; Sysmex), CSFA800 is more efficient and can analyze 20,000 cells in 1 min. However, the overall accuracy of CSFA800 is not as good as DI-60, although its counting performance is better for basophils.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The performance of CSFA800 for WBC counts is acceptable, and it displayed good performance for neutrophils, lymphocytes, and immature granulocytes. Compared to DI-60, CSFA800 is more efficient but has slightly lower overall accuracy. To some extent, CSFA800 is helpful to optimize the clinical laboratory workflow and improve the working efficiency of inspectors.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":100656,"journal":{"name":"iLABMED","volume":"1 1","pages":"22-28"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ila2.10","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"iLABMED","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ila2.10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Bionovation's CSFA800 is a new automated digital cell imaging analyzer. We evaluated the performance of the CSFA800 by comparing it with artificial peripheral blood white blood cell counting.

Methods

According to inclusion and exclusion criteria, 131 randomly selected samples (77 abnormal samples and 54 normal samples) were compared. Correlations between automated and manual counting results were analyzed. Manual counting was carried out according to the guidelines of the Association of Clinical and Laboratory Standards.

Results

Counts of neutrophils, lymphocytes, monocytes, eosinophils, basophils, and immature granulocytes obtained from CSFA800 and artificial methods were linearly and positively correlated, with R values of 0.73, 0.65, 0.24, 0.2, 0.4, and 0.63, respectively, all p < 0.05. Therefore, correlations between CSFA800 and manual counting are acceptable. Compared with the DI-60 Automated Digital Cell Morphology System (DI-60; Sysmex), CSFA800 is more efficient and can analyze 20,000 cells in 1 min. However, the overall accuracy of CSFA800 is not as good as DI-60, although its counting performance is better for basophils.

Conclusions

The performance of CSFA800 for WBC counts is acceptable, and it displayed good performance for neutrophils, lymphocytes, and immature granulocytes. Compared to DI-60, CSFA800 is more efficient but has slightly lower overall accuracy. To some extent, CSFA800 is helpful to optimize the clinical laboratory workflow and improve the working efficiency of inspectors.

Abstract Image

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

自动数字细胞形态分析系统与人工计数系统的比较

背景Bionovation的CSFA800是一种新型的自动化数字细胞成像分析仪。我们通过将CSFA800与人工外周血白细胞计数进行比较来评估其性能。方法根据纳入和排除标准，对随机抽取的131份样本（77份异常样本和54份正常样本）进行比较。分析了自动计数和手动计数结果之间的相关性。人工计数是根据临床和实验室标准协会的指导方针进行的。结果从CSFA800和人工方法中获得的中性粒细胞、淋巴细胞、单核细胞、嗜酸性粒细胞、嗜碱性粒细胞和未成熟粒细胞的计数呈线性正相关，R值分别为0.73、0.65、0.24、0.2、0.4和0.63，均为p<；0.05。因此，CSFA800和手动计数之间的相关性是可以接受的。与DI-60自动数字细胞形态学系统（DI-60；Sysmex）相比，CSFA800更高效，可以在1分钟内分析20000个细胞。然而，CSFA800的总体准确性不如DI-60，尽管它对嗜碱性粒细胞的计数性能更好。结论CSFA800对白细胞计数性能良好，对中性粒细胞、淋巴细胞和未成熟粒细胞具有良好的计数性能。与DI-60相比，CSFA800效率更高，但总体精度略低。在某种程度上，CSFA800有助于优化临床实验室工作流程，提高检查员的工作效率。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

iLABMED

自引率

0.00%

发文量