The Reliability of a Novel Automated System for ANA Immunofluorescence Analysis in Daily Clinical Practice.

IF 2.3 Q2 RHEUMATOLOGY
International Journal of Rheumatology Pub Date : 2016-01-01 Epub Date: 2016-05-09 DOI:10.1155/2016/6019268
Mohammed Alsuwaidi, Margit Dollinger, Martin Fleck, Boris Ehrenstein
{"title":"The Reliability of a Novel Automated System for ANA Immunofluorescence Analysis in Daily Clinical Practice.","authors":"Mohammed Alsuwaidi,&nbsp;Margit Dollinger,&nbsp;Martin Fleck,&nbsp;Boris Ehrenstein","doi":"10.1155/2016/6019268","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Automated interpretation (AI) systems for antinuclear antibody (ANA) analysis have been introduced based on assessment of indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) patterns. The diagnostic performance of a novel automated IIF reading system was compared with visual interpretation (VI) of IIF in daily clinical practice to evaluate the reduction of workload. ANA-IIF tests of consecutive serum samples from patients with suspected connective tissue disease were carried out using HEp-2 cells according to routine clinical care. AI was performed using a visual analyser (Zenit G-Sight, Menarini, Germany). Agreement rates between ANA results by AI and VI were calculated. Of the 336 samples investigated, VI yielded 205 (61%) negative, 42 (13%) ambiguous, and 89 (26%) positive results, whereas 82 (24%) were determined to be negative, 176 (52%) ambiguous, and 78 (24%) positive by AI. AI displayed a diagnostic accuracy of 175/336 samples (52%) with a kappa coefficient of 0.34 compared to VI being the gold standard. Solely relying on AI, with VI only performed for all ambiguous samples by AI, would have missed 1 of 89 (1%) positive results by VI and misclassified 2 of 205 (1%) negative results by VI as positive. The use of AI in daily clinical practice resulted only in a moderate reduction of the VI workload (82 of 336 samples: 24%). </p>","PeriodicalId":51715,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Rheumatology","volume":"2016 ","pages":"6019268"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2016/6019268","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Rheumatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/6019268","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/5/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Automated interpretation (AI) systems for antinuclear antibody (ANA) analysis have been introduced based on assessment of indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) patterns. The diagnostic performance of a novel automated IIF reading system was compared with visual interpretation (VI) of IIF in daily clinical practice to evaluate the reduction of workload. ANA-IIF tests of consecutive serum samples from patients with suspected connective tissue disease were carried out using HEp-2 cells according to routine clinical care. AI was performed using a visual analyser (Zenit G-Sight, Menarini, Germany). Agreement rates between ANA results by AI and VI were calculated. Of the 336 samples investigated, VI yielded 205 (61%) negative, 42 (13%) ambiguous, and 89 (26%) positive results, whereas 82 (24%) were determined to be negative, 176 (52%) ambiguous, and 78 (24%) positive by AI. AI displayed a diagnostic accuracy of 175/336 samples (52%) with a kappa coefficient of 0.34 compared to VI being the gold standard. Solely relying on AI, with VI only performed for all ambiguous samples by AI, would have missed 1 of 89 (1%) positive results by VI and misclassified 2 of 205 (1%) negative results by VI as positive. The use of AI in daily clinical practice resulted only in a moderate reduction of the VI workload (82 of 336 samples: 24%).

一种新型抗核抗体免疫荧光分析自动化系统在日常临床实践中的可靠性。
基于间接免疫荧光(IIF)模式的评估,引入了抗核抗体(ANA)分析的自动解释(AI)系统。在日常临床实践中,将一种新型的IIF自动读取系统的诊断性能与IIF的视觉判读(VI)进行比较,以评估工作量的减少。根据临床常规护理,采用HEp-2细胞对疑似结缔组织病患者连续血清标本进行ANA-IIF检测。人工智能使用视觉分析仪(Zenit G-Sight,德国美纳里尼)进行。计算AI和VI对ANA结果的符合率。在调查的336个样本中,VI产生205个(61%)阴性,42个(13%)模糊,89个(26%)阳性结果,而AI确定82个(24%)阴性,176个(52%)模糊,78个(24%)阳性。AI的诊断准确率为175/336个样本(52%),kappa系数为0.34,而VI是金标准。仅仅依靠人工智能,人工智能只对所有模棱两可的样本执行VI,将错过89个(1%)VI阳性结果中的1个,并将205个(1%)VI阴性结果中的2个误分类为阳性结果。在日常临床实践中使用人工智能仅导致VI工作量适度减少(336个样本中有82个:24%)。
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
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信