Digital Morphology Analyzer-Based White Blood Cell Differentials: Practical Considerations for External Quality Assessment.

IF 4.4 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
Hongkyung Kim, Oh Joo Kweon, Sumi Yoon, Yong Kwan Lim, Bohyun Kim
{"title":"Digital Morphology Analyzer-Based White Blood Cell Differentials: Practical Considerations for External Quality Assessment.","authors":"Hongkyung Kim, Oh Joo Kweon, Sumi Yoon, Yong Kwan Lim, Bohyun Kim","doi":"10.3343/alm.2026.0097","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Digital morphology (DM) analyzers are increasingly used for white blood cell (WBC) differential counting in routine hematology laboratories, necessitating tailored external quality assessment (EQA) schemes. We evaluated EQA-relevant practical considerations for DM analyzer-based WBC differentials.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Fifteen clinical laboratories participated in a multicenter EQA simulation using five centrally prepared, unstained peripheral blood smear samples. Institution-level post-classification results were analyzed as the primary outcomes. Exploratory analyses were performed using pre-classification and manual microscopic differentials. Examiner-level variability within institutions was evaluated, along with the distributions of WBC-classified and unclassified images following examiner verification.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most participating laboratories used DM analyzers primarily for screening WBC differentials, with predefined criteria for manual microscopic reviews, particularly when abnormal cell populations were noted. Inter-institutional and examiner-level variability were most pronounced for morphologically similar cell classes. Post-classification results were generally comparable with those of manual differentials across most cell classes. The proportion of unclassified images (including artifacts) increased, suggesting that operational and sample-related factors influenced the interpretation of the EQA results.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We identified key practical considerations for the EQA of DM analyzer-based WBC differential counting. An appropriate EQA design should incorporate clinically relevant abnormal cell populations and challenging sample types; data interpretation should extend beyond standard deviation index-based metrics to address abnormal cell detection. The overall concordance between post-classification results and manual differentials supports the importance of periodic verification, and slide quality should be considered when implementing DM analyzer-based EQA programs.</p>","PeriodicalId":8421,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Laboratory Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Laboratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2026.0097","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Digital morphology (DM) analyzers are increasingly used for white blood cell (WBC) differential counting in routine hematology laboratories, necessitating tailored external quality assessment (EQA) schemes. We evaluated EQA-relevant practical considerations for DM analyzer-based WBC differentials.

Methods: Fifteen clinical laboratories participated in a multicenter EQA simulation using five centrally prepared, unstained peripheral blood smear samples. Institution-level post-classification results were analyzed as the primary outcomes. Exploratory analyses were performed using pre-classification and manual microscopic differentials. Examiner-level variability within institutions was evaluated, along with the distributions of WBC-classified and unclassified images following examiner verification.

Results: Most participating laboratories used DM analyzers primarily for screening WBC differentials, with predefined criteria for manual microscopic reviews, particularly when abnormal cell populations were noted. Inter-institutional and examiner-level variability were most pronounced for morphologically similar cell classes. Post-classification results were generally comparable with those of manual differentials across most cell classes. The proportion of unclassified images (including artifacts) increased, suggesting that operational and sample-related factors influenced the interpretation of the EQA results.

Conclusions: We identified key practical considerations for the EQA of DM analyzer-based WBC differential counting. An appropriate EQA design should incorporate clinically relevant abnormal cell populations and challenging sample types; data interpretation should extend beyond standard deviation index-based metrics to address abnormal cell detection. The overall concordance between post-classification results and manual differentials supports the importance of periodic verification, and slide quality should be considered when implementing DM analyzer-based EQA programs.

基于数字形态学分析仪的白细胞鉴别:外部质量评估的实际考虑。
背景:数字形态学(DM)分析仪越来越多地用于常规血液学实验室的白细胞(WBC)差异计数,需要量身定制的外部质量评估(EQA)方案。我们评估了与eqa相关的基于DM分析仪的WBC差异的实际考虑因素。方法:15个临床实验室参与了多中心EQA模拟,使用5个中央制备的未染色外周血涂片样本。机构层面的分类后结果作为主要结果进行分析。探索性分析采用预分类和人工显微鉴别。评估了机构内审查员水平的可变性,以及审查员验证后wbc分类和未分类图像的分布。结果:大多数参与的实验室主要使用DM分析仪筛选白细胞的差异,并预先定义了人工显微镜检查的标准,特别是当注意到异常细胞群时。在形态相似的细胞类别中,机构间和考官水平的差异最为明显。分类后的结果通常可与大多数细胞类别的人工差异相媲美。未分类图像(包括伪影)的比例增加,表明操作和样本相关因素影响了EQA结果的解释。结论:我们确定了基于DM分析仪的白细胞差异计数的EQA的关键实际考虑因素。适当的EQA设计应结合临床相关的异常细胞群和具有挑战性的样本类型;数据解释应超越标准偏差指数为基础的指标,以解决异常细胞检测。分类后的结果与手工鉴别之间的总体一致性支持了定期验证的重要性,并且在实施基于DM分析仪的EQA程序时应考虑玻片质量。
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
Annals of Laboratory Medicine
Annals of Laboratory Medicine MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY-
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
12.20%
发文量
100
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of Laboratory Medicine is the official journal of Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine. The journal title has been recently changed from the Korean Journal of Laboratory Medicine (ISSN, 1598-6535) from the January issue of 2012. The JCR 2017 Impact factor of Ann Lab Med was 1.916.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书