白血病淋巴细胞增生性疾病流式细胞术分类的方法学和概念挑战。

IF 6.6 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
Nadia Güell, Pablo Mozas, Alba Jimenez-Rueda, Milos Miljkovic, Jordi Juncà, Marc Sorigue
{"title":"白血病淋巴细胞增生性疾病流式细胞术分类的方法学和概念挑战。","authors":"Nadia Güell,&nbsp;Pablo Mozas,&nbsp;Alba Jimenez-Rueda,&nbsp;Milos Miljkovic,&nbsp;Jordi Juncà,&nbsp;Marc Sorigue","doi":"10.1080/10408363.2022.2114418","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The diagnosis of leukemic B-cell lymphoproliferative disorders (B-LPDs) is made by integrating clinical, cytological, cytometric, cytogenetic, and molecular data. This leaves room for differences and inconsistencies between experts. In this study, we examine methodological and conceptual aspects of the flow cytometric classification of leukemic B-LPDs that could explain them. Among methodological aspects, we discuss (1) the different statistical tests used to select and evaluate markers, (2) how these markers are analyzed, (3) how scores are interpreted, (4) different degrees to which diagnostic information is used, and (5) and the impact of differences in study populations. Among conceptual aspects, we discuss (1) challenges to integrating different biological data points, (2) the under examination of the costs of misclassification (false positives and false negatives), and finally, (3) we delve into the impact of the lack of a true diagnostic gold standard and the indirect evidence suggesting poor reproducibility in the diagnosis of leukemic B-LPDs. We then outline current harmonization efforts and our personal approach. We conclude that numerous flow cytometry scores and diagnostic systems are now available; however, as long as the considerations discussed remain unaddressed, external reproducibility and interobserver agreement will not be achieved, and the field will not be able to move forward if a true gold standard is not found.</p>","PeriodicalId":10760,"journal":{"name":"Critical reviews in clinical laboratory sciences","volume":"60 2","pages":"83-100"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Methodological and conceptual challenges to the flow cytometric classification of leukemic lymphoproliferative disorders.\",\"authors\":\"Nadia Güell,&nbsp;Pablo Mozas,&nbsp;Alba Jimenez-Rueda,&nbsp;Milos Miljkovic,&nbsp;Jordi Juncà,&nbsp;Marc Sorigue\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10408363.2022.2114418\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The diagnosis of leukemic B-cell lymphoproliferative disorders (B-LPDs) is made by integrating clinical, cytological, cytometric, cytogenetic, and molecular data. This leaves room for differences and inconsistencies between experts. In this study, we examine methodological and conceptual aspects of the flow cytometric classification of leukemic B-LPDs that could explain them. Among methodological aspects, we discuss (1) the different statistical tests used to select and evaluate markers, (2) how these markers are analyzed, (3) how scores are interpreted, (4) different degrees to which diagnostic information is used, and (5) and the impact of differences in study populations. Among conceptual aspects, we discuss (1) challenges to integrating different biological data points, (2) the under examination of the costs of misclassification (false positives and false negatives), and finally, (3) we delve into the impact of the lack of a true diagnostic gold standard and the indirect evidence suggesting poor reproducibility in the diagnosis of leukemic B-LPDs. We then outline current harmonization efforts and our personal approach. We conclude that numerous flow cytometry scores and diagnostic systems are now available; however, as long as the considerations discussed remain unaddressed, external reproducibility and interobserver agreement will not be achieved, and the field will not be able to move forward if a true gold standard is not found.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10760,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical reviews in clinical laboratory sciences\",\"volume\":\"60 2\",\"pages\":\"83-100\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical reviews in clinical laboratory sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10408363.2022.2114418\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical reviews in clinical laboratory sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10408363.2022.2114418","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: 1

摘要

白血病b淋巴细胞增生性疾病(b - lpd)的诊断是通过综合临床、细胞学、细胞学、细胞遗传学和分子数据来完成的。这给专家之间的分歧和不一致留下了空间。在这项研究中,我们研究了白血病b - lpd的流式细胞术分类的方法学和概念方面,可以解释它们。在方法学方面,我们讨论(1)用于选择和评估标记的不同统计测试,(2)如何分析这些标记,(3)如何解释分数,(4)使用诊断信息的不同程度,以及(5)研究人群差异的影响。在概念方面,我们讨论了(1)整合不同生物学数据点的挑战,(2)对错误分类(假阳性和假阴性)成本的审查,最后,(3)我们深入研究了缺乏真正的诊断金标准和间接证据表明白血病b - lpd诊断可重复性差的影响。然后,我们概述当前的协调努力和我们个人的方法。我们的结论是,现在有许多流式细胞术评分和诊断系统;但是,只要所讨论的考虑因素没有得到解决,就无法实现外部可重复性和观察员间的协议,如果没有找到真正的黄金标准,该领域就无法向前发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Methodological and conceptual challenges to the flow cytometric classification of leukemic lymphoproliferative disorders.

The diagnosis of leukemic B-cell lymphoproliferative disorders (B-LPDs) is made by integrating clinical, cytological, cytometric, cytogenetic, and molecular data. This leaves room for differences and inconsistencies between experts. In this study, we examine methodological and conceptual aspects of the flow cytometric classification of leukemic B-LPDs that could explain them. Among methodological aspects, we discuss (1) the different statistical tests used to select and evaluate markers, (2) how these markers are analyzed, (3) how scores are interpreted, (4) different degrees to which diagnostic information is used, and (5) and the impact of differences in study populations. Among conceptual aspects, we discuss (1) challenges to integrating different biological data points, (2) the under examination of the costs of misclassification (false positives and false negatives), and finally, (3) we delve into the impact of the lack of a true diagnostic gold standard and the indirect evidence suggesting poor reproducibility in the diagnosis of leukemic B-LPDs. We then outline current harmonization efforts and our personal approach. We conclude that numerous flow cytometry scores and diagnostic systems are now available; however, as long as the considerations discussed remain unaddressed, external reproducibility and interobserver agreement will not be achieved, and the field will not be able to move forward if a true gold standard is not found.

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
CiteScore
20.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences publishes comprehensive and high quality review articles in all areas of clinical laboratory science, including clinical biochemistry, hematology, microbiology, pathology, transfusion medicine, genetics, immunology and molecular diagnostics. The reviews critically evaluate the status of current issues in the selected areas, with a focus on clinical laboratory diagnostics and latest advances. The adjective “critical” implies a balanced synthesis of results and conclusions that are frequently contradictory and controversial.
×
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