| Literature DB >> 34546630 |
Ben-Zion Katz1,2, Michael D Feldman3, Minychel Tessema4, Dan Benisty1, Grace Stewart Toles3, Alicia Andre4, Bronka Shtreker1, Fatima Maria Paz3, Joshua Edwards3, Darrin Jengehino3, Adam Bagg3, Irit Avivi1,2, Olga Pozdnyakova4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current digital cell imaging systems perform peripheral blood smear (PBS) analysis in limited regions of the PBS and require the support of manual microscopy without achieving full digital microscopy. We report a multicenter study that validated the Scopio Labs X100 Full Field PBS, a novel digital imaging system that utilizes a full field view approach for cell recognition and classification, in a decision support system mode.Entities:
Keywords: Artificial Inteligence; blood smear; laboratory automation; morphology
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34546630 PMCID: PMC9293172 DOI: 10.1111/ijlh.13681
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Lab Hematol ISSN: 1751-5521 Impact factor: 3.450
Peripheral blood smears’ distribution and classification across three testing sites and representative samples
| Clinical condition | Multi center | HUP | TASMC | BWH | Representative sample links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 645 | 224 | 219 | 202 | ‐ |
| Normal | 335 | 116 | 115 | 104 |
|
| Abnormal | 310 | 108 | 104 | 98 | ‐ |
| Distribution of abnormal samples | |||||
| Acute inflammation/Bacterial infection | 49 | 13 | 19 | 17 |
|
| Chronic inflammation | 32 | 13 | 8 | 11 |
|
| Parasitic infection/Allergic reaction | 44 | 18 | 12 | 14 |
|
| Viral infection | 41 | 13 | 14 | 14 |
|
| Aplastic anemia/Chemotherapy | 29 | 13 | 10 | 6 |
|
| Lymphopenia | 42 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
|
| Acute leukemia | 33 | 12 | 10 | 11 |
|
| Severe anemia/Myeloproliferative disorders | 40 | 13 | 17 | 10 |
|
Peripheral blood smears’ distribution and classification across three testing sites, and representative samples. HUP, the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania Hospital; TASMC, Tel‐Aviv Sourasky Medical Center; BWH, Brigham and Women's Hospital. Right column: links for representative samples for each clinical category.
Comparison of distributional normal ranges (%) and morphological normal ranges (%) between the manual and digital methods across three sites
| Distributional normal ranges | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cell type | HUP | TASMC | BWH | |||
| Manual microscope | Full Field microscope | Manual microscope | Full Field microscope | Manual microscope | Full Field microscope | |
| Neutrophils | 47.50‐84.50 | 45.33‐84.50 | 46.00‐76.50 | 42.00‐75.00 | 53.06‐81.00 | 51.50‐79.94 |
| Lymphocytes | 8.50‐46.23 | 7.00‐45.82 | 10.00‐39.50 | 11.00‐37.00 | 8.50‐29.26 | 7.00‐30.07 |
| Monocytes | 1.00‐10.00 | 0.90‐11.00 | 2.00‐12.00 | 1.41‐11.50 | 2.06‐8.94 | 1.06‐8.50 |
| Eosinophils | 0.00‐5.50 | 0.00‐5.50 | 0.00‐8.00 | 0.00‐6.50 | 0.00‐4.00 | 0.00‐4.44 |
| Basophils | 0.00‐2.00 | 0.00‐2.01 | 0.00‐2.00 | 0.00‐2.50 | 0.00‐1.52 | 0.00‐1.97 |
| Morphological normal ranges | ||||||
| NRBC | 0.00‐0.50 | 0.00‐1.00 | 0.00‐0.00 | 0.00‐0.50 | 0.00‐1.00 | 0.00‐0.50 |
| Blasts | 0.00‐0.50 | 0.00‐0.50 | 0.00‐0.00 | 0.00‐0.00 | 0.00‐0.00 | 0.00‐0.00 |
| Variant lymphocytes | 0.00‐5.50 | 0.00‐9.50 | 0.00‐16.00 | 0.00‐19.00 | 0.00‐11.94 | 0.00‐14.00 |
| Immature granulocytes | 0.00‐1.00 | 0.00‐2.00 | 0.00‐0.50 | 0.00‐0.50 | 0.00‐0.50 | 0.00‐1.00 |
| Plasma cells | 0.00‐0.00 | 0.00‐0.51 | 0.00‐0.00 | 0.00‐0.29 | 0.00‐0.00 | 0.00‐0.00 |
Comparison of distributional normal ranges (%) and morphological normal ranges (%) between the manual and digital methods across three sites. Immature myeloid cells include metamyelocytes, myelocytes, and promyelocytes. Variant lymphoid cells include atypical lymphocytes, aberrant lymphocytes, and large granular lymphocytes. HUP, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania Hospital; TASMC, Tel‐Aviv Sourasky Medical Center; BWH, Brigham and Women's Hospital.
FIGURE 1A, Comparison between manual differential count and Scopio Labs Full Field PBS system for neutrophils, lymphocytes, monocytes, and eosinophils. Correlation coefficients (R2) are indicated for each cell types. Representative samples from the correlation curves (green dots) are indicated in Roman letters and can be viewed in the links indicated herein: I – Neutrophils: https://demo.scopiolabs.com/#/view_scan/65e8a4bd‐4fa2‐4447‐a6dc‐ad0cf977df22; II – Lymphocytes: https://demo.scopiolabs.com/#/view_scan/507d01a1‐f4a1‐4ece‐b117‐ef663f6fdea3; III – Monocytes: https://demo.scopiolabs.com/#/view_scan/dfd17545‐e517‐43e1‐8957‐f03e40ab07e5; IV – Eosinophils: https://demo.scopiolabs.com/#/view_scan/65da1bcf‐521f‐46ef‐83e7‐ea7b20854e01. B, Comparison between CBC‐derived platelet count (left) and manual microscopy platelet estimation (right) to Scopio Labs Full Field PBS system platelet estimation. Correlation coefficients (R2) are indicated for each comparison. Representative samples from the correlation curves (green dots) are indicated in Roman letters and can be viewed in the links indicated herein: V – CBC comparison: https://demo.scopiolabs.com/#/view_scan/d047ca7f‐728a‐4435‐807c‐b782aea96cb9; VI – manual microscopy estimation comparison: https://demo.scopiolabs.com/#/view_scan/47ced5c4‐cda2‐4837‐aa99‐7f296fa4cd37
Comparison between manual RBC analysis of microscopy (reference) and Scopio Labs Full Field PBS (test)
| RBC morphology group | Multi‐center | HUP | TASMC | BWH |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Color |
99.49% 99.14%‐99.73% |
98.88% 97.96%‐99.46% |
100.00% 99.57%‐100.00% |
99.63% 98.92%‐99.92% |
| Shape |
99.77% 99.68%‐99.84% |
99.94% 99.84%‐99.99% |
99.96% 99.86%‐100.00% |
99.36% 99.09%‐99.57% |
| Size |
99.61% 99.36%‐99.78% |
99.11% 98.45%‐99.54% |
99.92% 99.57%‐100.00% |
99.83% 99.41%‐99.98% |
| Inclusions |
100.00% 99.93%‐100.00% |
100.00% 99.79%‐100.00% |
100.00% 99.79%‐100.00% |
100.00% 99.77%‐100.00% |
| Arrangement |
96.65% 95.52%‐97.57% |
99.11% 97.73%‐99.76% |
90.97% 87.87%‐93.50% |
100.00% 99.09%‐100.00% |
| Overall |
99.77% 99.71%‐99.83% |
99.75% 99.63%‐99.84% |
99.97% 99.91%‐99.99% |
99.59% 99.44%‐99.72% |
Comparison between manual RBC analysis of microscopy (reference) and Scopio Labs Full Field PBS (test). The range and average agreement between reference and test methods in 5 morphological groups across the three sites are presented (%). HUP, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania Hospital; TASMC, Tel‐Aviv Sourasky Medical Center; BWH, Brigham and Women's Hospital.
FIGURE 2A, A representative layout of the repeatability measurement of a normal sample for neutrophils, lymphocytes, monocytes, and eosinophils. Two replicas of the samples for each cell type are presented along the 20‐day period of the experiment. The values are in % of the differential. B, Repeatability results of the different WBC types. Upper bound of the SD’s 95% CI values for within‐laboratory precision component is presented for the different WBC types in the 15 tested samples. Each cell type is presented according to the color code (right). All values were below the predefined acceptance criteria of 5% (dashed line). C, Repeatability results for platelets estimation. The mean platelet values for each of the 15 tested sample are presented. The vertical error segments representing SD within‐laboratory precision component. All SD values were below the predefined acceptance criteria of 50 platelets. D, Reproducibility results of the different WBC types. The SD values of the reproducibility component for the different WBC types in the 10 tested samples are shown. Each cell type is presented according to the color code (right). All SD values were below the predefined acceptance criteria of 5% (dashed line). E, Reproducibility results for platelets estimation. The mean platelets value for each of the 10 tested sample is presented. The vertical error segments representing SD values of the reproducibility component