Novel comparison of CellaVision DC-1 and microscopic assessment of blood film morphology in paediatrics

Q1 Medicine

Informatics in Medicine Unlocked Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.imu.2025.101690

Heba Sharif , Denise E. Jackson , Genia Burchall

{"title":"Novel comparison of CellaVision DC-1 and microscopic assessment of blood film morphology in paediatrics","authors":"Heba Sharif , Denise E. Jackson , Genia Burchall","doi":"10.1016/j.imu.2025.101690","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The aim of this study was to evaluate the blood film assessment of CellaVision DC-1 compared to conventional microscopy in stained peripheral blood (PB) films from paediatric samples.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Blood films (n = 50) including clinically normal samples as well as common pathological conditions, were collected and examined by conventional microscopy and CellaVision DC-1. Manual microscopy counts vs. automated WBC differentiation and RBC grading via Cellavision, including manual re-classification, were compared to expert morphologist reporting. Using statistical analysis, the following metrics were measured including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The reliability of RBC grading ranged between 60 and 100 % sensitivity and 55–74 % specificity for CellaVision method compared to 78–93 % sensitivity with manual microscopy, demonstrating the latter as the superior method. Additionally, DC-1 misclassified the presence of blasts for lymphocytes, with 67 % compared to 100 % specificity with the gold standard microscopy. Both pre- and post-classification, re-classifications, and manual microscopy showed strong correlations of WBC differential counts with expert/known readings, mainly for neutrophils and lymphocytes (<span><math><mrow><msup><mi>R</mi><mrow><mn>2</mn><mo>:</mo></mrow></msup></mrow></math></span> 0.60–0.85). In terms of time, CellaVision took 1 min longer to scan and assess each slide than did light microscopy, which could affect timely diagnosis and treatment decisions.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The use of CellaVision DC-1 may be beneficial to diagnostic laboratories in the adult setting; however, further research should focus on enhancing automated analysis when assessing paediatric samples that demand human intellect and critical thinking. Medical Scientist training and software development are recommended. Manual microscopy is faster and more accurate. Slide signing and DC-1 classifications of unclassified WBCs need scientist intervention.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":13953,"journal":{"name":"Informatics in Medicine Unlocked","volume":"58 ","pages":"Article 101690"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Informatics in Medicine Unlocked","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352914825000796","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate the blood film assessment of CellaVision DC-1 compared to conventional microscopy in stained peripheral blood (PB) films from paediatric samples.

Methods

Blood films (n = 50) including clinically normal samples as well as common pathological conditions, were collected and examined by conventional microscopy and CellaVision DC-1. Manual microscopy counts vs. automated WBC differentiation and RBC grading via Cellavision, including manual re-classification, were compared to expert morphologist reporting. Using statistical analysis, the following metrics were measured including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV).

Results

The reliability of RBC grading ranged between 60 and 100 % sensitivity and 55–74 % specificity for CellaVision method compared to 78–93 % sensitivity with manual microscopy, demonstrating the latter as the superior method. Additionally, DC-1 misclassified the presence of blasts for lymphocytes, with 67 % compared to 100 % specificity with the gold standard microscopy. Both pre- and post-classification, re-classifications, and manual microscopy showed strong correlations of WBC differential counts with expert/known readings, mainly for neutrophils and lymphocytes (

R^{2 :}

0.60–0.85). In terms of time, CellaVision took 1 min longer to scan and assess each slide than did light microscopy, which could affect timely diagnosis and treatment decisions.

Conclusion

The use of CellaVision DC-1 may be beneficial to diagnostic laboratories in the adult setting; however, further research should focus on enhancing automated analysis when assessing paediatric samples that demand human intellect and critical thinking. Medical Scientist training and software development are recommended. Manual microscopy is faster and more accurate. Slide signing and DC-1 classifications of unclassified WBCs need scientist intervention.

查看原文本刊更多论文

CellaVision DC-1与儿科血膜形态显微评估的新比较

本研究的目的是评价CellaVision DC-1与传统显微镜在儿童外周血染色（PB）膜上的血膜评估。方法采集临床正常标本及常见病理标本50例，经常规显微镜及CellaVision DC-1检查。人工显微镜计数与Cellavision自动白细胞分化和红细胞分级，包括人工重新分类，与专家形态学报告进行比较。通过统计分析，测量以下指标，包括敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值（PPV）和阴性预测值（NPV）。结果CellaVision方法对红细胞分级的灵敏度为60% ~ 100%，特异性为55 ~ 74%，而手工镜检的灵敏度为78 ~ 93%，证明手工镜检是一种更好的方法。此外，DC-1错误地将淋巴细胞存在的原细胞分类为67%，而金标准显微镜的特异性为100%。分类前、分类后、重新分类和人工显微镜均显示WBC差异计数与专家/已知读数有很强的相关性，主要是中性粒细胞和淋巴细胞（R2: 0.60-0.85）。在时间方面，CellaVision扫描和评估每张载玻片的时间比光学显微镜长1分钟，这可能会影响及时的诊断和治疗决策。结论CellaVision DC-1可用于成人诊断实验室；然而，进一步的研究应侧重于在评估需要人类智力和批判性思维的儿科样本时加强自动化分析。建议进行医学科学家培训和软件开发。手动显微镜更快更准确。滑动签名和DC-1分类未分类白细胞需要科学家的干预。

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分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Informatics in Medicine Unlocked Medicine-Health Informatics

CiteScore

9.50

自引率

0.00%

发文量

282

审稿时长

39 days

期刊介绍： Informatics in Medicine Unlocked (IMU) is an international gold open access journal covering a broad spectrum of topics within medical informatics, including (but not limited to) papers focusing on imaging, pathology, teledermatology, public health, ophthalmological, nursing and translational medicine informatics. The full papers that are published in the journal are accessible to all who visit the website.