Limits...
Performance of the CellaVision(®) DM96 system for detecting red blood cell morphologic abnormalities.

Horn CL, Mansoor A, Wood B, Nelson H, Higa D, Lee LH, Naugler C - J Pathol Inform (2015)

Bottom Line: The sensitivity ranged from a low of 33% (RBC agglutination) to a high of 100% (sickle cells, stomatocytes).The remainder of the RBC abnormalities tested somewhere between these two extremes.The specificity ranged from 84% (schistocytes) to 99.5% (sickle cells, stomatocytes).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2L 2K8, Canada ; Calgary Laboratory Services, Calgary, AB T2L 2K8, Canada.

ABSTRACT

Background: Red blood cell (RBC) analysis is a key feature in the evaluation of hematological disorders. The gold standard light microscopy technique has high sensitivity, but is a relativity time-consuming and labor intensive procedure. This study tested the sensitivity and specificity of gold standard light microscopy manual differential to the CellaVision(®) DM96 (CCS; CellaVision, Lund, Sweden) automated image analysis system, which takes digital images of samples at high magnification and compares these images with an artificial neural network based on a database of cells and preclassified according to RBC morphology.

Methods: In this study, 212 abnormal peripheral blood smears within the Calgary Laboratory Services network of hospital laboratories were selected and assessed for 15 different RBC morphologic abnormalities by manual microscopy. The same samples were reassessed as a manual addition from the instrument screen using the CellaVision(®) DM96 system with 8 microscope high power fields (×100 objective and a 22 mm ocular). The results of the investigation were then used to calculate the sensitivity and specificity of the CellaVision(®) DM96 system in reference to light microscopy.

Results: The sensitivity ranged from a low of 33% (RBC agglutination) to a high of 100% (sickle cells, stomatocytes). The remainder of the RBC abnormalities tested somewhere between these two extremes. The specificity ranged from 84% (schistocytes) to 99.5% (sickle cells, stomatocytes).

Conclusions: Our results showed generally high specificities but variable sensitivities for RBC morphologic abnormalities.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Example screenshot from the CellaVision® DM96 system showing normal red blood cells
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4355826&req=5

Figure 1: Example screenshot from the CellaVision® DM96 system showing normal red blood cells

Mentions: The same slides were analyzed by the CellaVision® DM96 system. Each slide was scored and data was collected using the same criteria as the manual differential method where RBC morphology abnormalities were reported as present or absent. The classification of any of the RBC abnormalities studied is a manual addition from the instrument screen and is not automatic. The CellaVision® DM96 and glass slide classifications were then compared in truth tables and sensitivities and specificities calculated. A representative digitized field from the CellaVision® DM96 system is shown in Figure 1.


Performance of the CellaVision(®) DM96 system for detecting red blood cell morphologic abnormalities.

Horn CL, Mansoor A, Wood B, Nelson H, Higa D, Lee LH, Naugler C - J Pathol Inform (2015)

Example screenshot from the CellaVision® DM96 system showing normal red blood cells
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4355826&req=5

Figure 1: Example screenshot from the CellaVision® DM96 system showing normal red blood cells
Mentions: The same slides were analyzed by the CellaVision® DM96 system. Each slide was scored and data was collected using the same criteria as the manual differential method where RBC morphology abnormalities were reported as present or absent. The classification of any of the RBC abnormalities studied is a manual addition from the instrument screen and is not automatic. The CellaVision® DM96 and glass slide classifications were then compared in truth tables and sensitivities and specificities calculated. A representative digitized field from the CellaVision® DM96 system is shown in Figure 1.

Bottom Line: The sensitivity ranged from a low of 33% (RBC agglutination) to a high of 100% (sickle cells, stomatocytes).The remainder of the RBC abnormalities tested somewhere between these two extremes.The specificity ranged from 84% (schistocytes) to 99.5% (sickle cells, stomatocytes).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2L 2K8, Canada ; Calgary Laboratory Services, Calgary, AB T2L 2K8, Canada.

ABSTRACT

Background: Red blood cell (RBC) analysis is a key feature in the evaluation of hematological disorders. The gold standard light microscopy technique has high sensitivity, but is a relativity time-consuming and labor intensive procedure. This study tested the sensitivity and specificity of gold standard light microscopy manual differential to the CellaVision(®) DM96 (CCS; CellaVision, Lund, Sweden) automated image analysis system, which takes digital images of samples at high magnification and compares these images with an artificial neural network based on a database of cells and preclassified according to RBC morphology.

Methods: In this study, 212 abnormal peripheral blood smears within the Calgary Laboratory Services network of hospital laboratories were selected and assessed for 15 different RBC morphologic abnormalities by manual microscopy. The same samples were reassessed as a manual addition from the instrument screen using the CellaVision(®) DM96 system with 8 microscope high power fields (×100 objective and a 22 mm ocular). The results of the investigation were then used to calculate the sensitivity and specificity of the CellaVision(®) DM96 system in reference to light microscopy.

Results: The sensitivity ranged from a low of 33% (RBC agglutination) to a high of 100% (sickle cells, stomatocytes). The remainder of the RBC abnormalities tested somewhere between these two extremes. The specificity ranged from 84% (schistocytes) to 99.5% (sickle cells, stomatocytes).

Conclusions: Our results showed generally high specificities but variable sensitivities for RBC morphologic abnormalities.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus