应用加权稳健统计方法,通过数字化图像分析,对双中心染色体检测进行 LBDNet 实验室间比较。

Jorge Ernesto González Mesa, Diego Alem Glison, Fabio Andrés Chaves-Campos, Fernando Ortíz Morales, Luisa Valle Bourrouet, Melissa Abarca Ramírez, Valentina Verdejo, Marina Di Giorgio, Analía Radl, María Rosa Taja, Mayra Deminge, Ana Rada-Tarifa, Erika Lafuente-Alvarez, Fabiana Farias de Lima, Suy Hwang, Mariana Esposito Mendes, Tania Mandina-Cardoso, Gabriela Muñoz-Velastegui, Yolanda Citlali Guerrero-Carbajal, Carolina Arceo Maldonado, Norma Monjagata, Sara Aguilar-Coronel, Marco Espinoza-Zevallos, Aida Falcon de Vargas, Maria Vittoria Di Tomaso, Bret Holladay, Omar García Lima, Wilner Martínez-López
{"title":"应用加权稳健统计方法,通过数字化图像分析,对双中心染色体检测进行 LBDNet 实验室间比较。","authors":"Jorge Ernesto González Mesa, Diego Alem Glison, Fabio Andrés Chaves-Campos, Fernando Ortíz Morales, Luisa Valle Bourrouet, Melissa Abarca Ramírez, Valentina Verdejo, Marina Di Giorgio, Analía Radl, María Rosa Taja, Mayra Deminge, Ana Rada-Tarifa, Erika Lafuente-Alvarez, Fabiana Farias de Lima, Suy Hwang, Mariana Esposito Mendes, Tania Mandina-Cardoso, Gabriela Muñoz-Velastegui, Yolanda Citlali Guerrero-Carbajal, Carolina Arceo Maldonado, Norma Monjagata, Sara Aguilar-Coronel, Marco Espinoza-Zevallos, Aida Falcon de Vargas, Maria Vittoria Di Tomaso, Bret Holladay, Omar García Lima, Wilner Martínez-López","doi":"10.1080/09553002.2024.2356556","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This interlaboratory comparison was conducted to evaluate the performance of the Latin-American Biodosimetry Network (LBDNet) in analyzing digitized images for scoring dicentric chromosomes from <i>in vitro</i> irradiated blood samples. The exercise also assessed the use of weighted robust algorithms to compensate the uneven expertise among the participating laboratories.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three sets of coded images obtained through the dicentric chromosome assay from blood samples irradiated at 1.5 Gy (sample A) and 4 Gy (sample B), as well as a non-irradiated whole blood sample (sample C), were shared among LBDNet laboratories. The images were captured using the Metafer4 platform coupled with the AutoCapt module. The laboratories were requested to perform triage scoring, conventional scoring, and dose estimation. The dose estimation was carried out using either their laboratory calibration curve or a common calibration curve. A comparative statistical analysis was conducted using a weighted robust Hampel algorithm and z score to compensate for uneven expertise in dicentric analysis and dose assessment among all laboratories.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of twelve laboratories, one had unsatisfactory estimated doses at 0 Gy, and two had unsatisfactory estimated doses at 1.5 Gy when using their own calibration curve and triage scoring mode. However, all doses were satisfactory at 4 Gy. Six laboratories had estimated doses within 95% uncertainty limits at 0 Gy, seven at 1.5 Gy, and four at 4 Gy. While the mean dose for sample C was significantly biased using robust algorithms, applying weights to compensate for the laboratory's analysis expertise reduced the bias by half. The bias from delivered doses was only notable for sample C. Using the common calibration curve for dose estimation reduced the standard deviation (<i>s</i>*) estimated by robust methods for all three samples.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results underscore the significance of performing interlaboratory comparison exercises that involve digitized and electronically transmitted images, even when analyzing non-irradiated samples. In situations where the participating laboratories possess different levels of proficiency, it may prove essential to employ weighted robust algorithms to achieve precise outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":94057,"journal":{"name":"International journal of radiation biology","volume":" ","pages":"1019-1028"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"LBDNet interlaboratory comparison for the dicentric chromosome assay by digitized image analysis applying weighted robust statistical methods.\",\"authors\":\"Jorge Ernesto González Mesa, Diego Alem Glison, Fabio Andrés Chaves-Campos, Fernando Ortíz Morales, Luisa Valle Bourrouet, Melissa Abarca Ramírez, Valentina Verdejo, Marina Di Giorgio, Analía Radl, María Rosa Taja, Mayra Deminge, Ana Rada-Tarifa, Erika Lafuente-Alvarez, Fabiana Farias de Lima, Suy Hwang, Mariana Esposito Mendes, Tania Mandina-Cardoso, Gabriela Muñoz-Velastegui, Yolanda Citlali Guerrero-Carbajal, Carolina Arceo Maldonado, Norma Monjagata, Sara Aguilar-Coronel, Marco Espinoza-Zevallos, Aida Falcon de Vargas, Maria Vittoria Di Tomaso, Bret Holladay, Omar García Lima, Wilner Martínez-López\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09553002.2024.2356556\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This interlaboratory comparison was conducted to evaluate the performance of the Latin-American Biodosimetry Network (LBDNet) in analyzing digitized images for scoring dicentric chromosomes from <i>in vitro</i> irradiated blood samples. The exercise also assessed the use of weighted robust algorithms to compensate the uneven expertise among the participating laboratories.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three sets of coded images obtained through the dicentric chromosome assay from blood samples irradiated at 1.5 Gy (sample A) and 4 Gy (sample B), as well as a non-irradiated whole blood sample (sample C), were shared among LBDNet laboratories. The images were captured using the Metafer4 platform coupled with the AutoCapt module. The laboratories were requested to perform triage scoring, conventional scoring, and dose estimation. The dose estimation was carried out using either their laboratory calibration curve or a common calibration curve. A comparative statistical analysis was conducted using a weighted robust Hampel algorithm and z score to compensate for uneven expertise in dicentric analysis and dose assessment among all laboratories.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of twelve laboratories, one had unsatisfactory estimated doses at 0 Gy, and two had unsatisfactory estimated doses at 1.5 Gy when using their own calibration curve and triage scoring mode. However, all doses were satisfactory at 4 Gy. Six laboratories had estimated doses within 95% uncertainty limits at 0 Gy, seven at 1.5 Gy, and four at 4 Gy. While the mean dose for sample C was significantly biased using robust algorithms, applying weights to compensate for the laboratory's analysis expertise reduced the bias by half. The bias from delivered doses was only notable for sample C. Using the common calibration curve for dose estimation reduced the standard deviation (<i>s</i>*) estimated by robust methods for all three samples.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results underscore the significance of performing interlaboratory comparison exercises that involve digitized and electronically transmitted images, even when analyzing non-irradiated samples. In situations where the participating laboratories possess different levels of proficiency, it may prove essential to employ weighted robust algorithms to achieve precise outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94057,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of radiation biology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1019-1028\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of radiation biology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09553002.2024.2356556\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of radiation biology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09553002.2024.2356556","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本次实验室间比对旨在评估拉丁美洲生物测定网络(LBDNet)在分析数字化图像以对体外辐照血液样本中的双中心染色体进行评分方面的性能。这项工作还评估了加权稳健算法的使用情况,以弥补参与实验室之间专业知识的不均衡:方法:LBDNet 实验室共享三组通过双中心染色体检测获得的编码图像,这三组图像分别来自经过 1.5 Gy(样本 A)和 4 Gy(样本 B)辐照的血液样本,以及未经辐照的全血样本(样本 C)。图像使用 Metafer4 平台和 AutoCapt 模块采集。要求实验室进行分流评分、常规评分和剂量估算。剂量估算使用实验室校准曲线或通用校准曲线进行。使用加权稳健汉普尔算法和 z 评分进行了比较统计分析,以弥补所有实验室在二中心分析和剂量评估方面专业知识的不均衡:结果:在12个实验室中,一个实验室在使用自己的校准曲线和分流评分模式时,0 Gy时的估计剂量不能令人满意,两个实验室在使用自己的校准曲线和分流评分模式时,1.5 Gy时的估计剂量不能令人满意。但在 4 Gy 时,所有剂量都令人满意。6 个实验室在 0 Gy 时的估计剂量在 95% 不确定度范围内,7 个实验室在 1.5 Gy 时的估计剂量在 95% 不确定度范围内,4 个实验室在 4 Gy 时的估计剂量在 95% 不确定度范围内。虽然样本 C 的平均剂量在使用稳健算法时存在明显偏差,但应用权重来补偿实验室的分析专长可将偏差减半。使用通用校准曲线进行剂量估算降低了所有三个样本的稳健方法估算的标准偏差(s*):这些结果突出表明,即使在分析非辐照样本时,也要进行涉及数字化和电子传输图像的实验室间比对工作。在参与比对的实验室水平不一的情况下,采用加权稳健算法以获得精确结果可能是至关重要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
LBDNet interlaboratory comparison for the dicentric chromosome assay by digitized image analysis applying weighted robust statistical methods.

Purpose: This interlaboratory comparison was conducted to evaluate the performance of the Latin-American Biodosimetry Network (LBDNet) in analyzing digitized images for scoring dicentric chromosomes from in vitro irradiated blood samples. The exercise also assessed the use of weighted robust algorithms to compensate the uneven expertise among the participating laboratories.

Methods: Three sets of coded images obtained through the dicentric chromosome assay from blood samples irradiated at 1.5 Gy (sample A) and 4 Gy (sample B), as well as a non-irradiated whole blood sample (sample C), were shared among LBDNet laboratories. The images were captured using the Metafer4 platform coupled with the AutoCapt module. The laboratories were requested to perform triage scoring, conventional scoring, and dose estimation. The dose estimation was carried out using either their laboratory calibration curve or a common calibration curve. A comparative statistical analysis was conducted using a weighted robust Hampel algorithm and z score to compensate for uneven expertise in dicentric analysis and dose assessment among all laboratories.

Results: Out of twelve laboratories, one had unsatisfactory estimated doses at 0 Gy, and two had unsatisfactory estimated doses at 1.5 Gy when using their own calibration curve and triage scoring mode. However, all doses were satisfactory at 4 Gy. Six laboratories had estimated doses within 95% uncertainty limits at 0 Gy, seven at 1.5 Gy, and four at 4 Gy. While the mean dose for sample C was significantly biased using robust algorithms, applying weights to compensate for the laboratory's analysis expertise reduced the bias by half. The bias from delivered doses was only notable for sample C. Using the common calibration curve for dose estimation reduced the standard deviation (s*) estimated by robust methods for all three samples.

Conclusions: The results underscore the significance of performing interlaboratory comparison exercises that involve digitized and electronically transmitted images, even when analyzing non-irradiated samples. In situations where the participating laboratories possess different levels of proficiency, it may prove essential to employ weighted robust algorithms to achieve precise outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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