Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: The Sysmex DI-60 digital morphology analyzer is a fully automated, cell-locating image analysis system. This study aimed to evaluate the analytical performance of DI-60. METHODS: A total of 822 peripheral blood smears were used. The diagnostic performance of DI-60 in terms of red blood cell (RBC) morphology characterization, white blood cell (WBC) differentials, and the total assay time including hands-on time was evaluated. RESULTS: In comparison with manual slide review, DI-60 demonstrated acceptable accuracy in recognizing polychromasia, target cells, and ovalocytes. However, for schistocytes, DI-60 demonstrated low specificity (10.4%) despite the high sensitivity (97.2%). In the precision analysis of RBC morphology characterization, borderline samples harboring specific RBCs showed inconsistencies in the positive results among 20 replicates. Particularly, 6 of 10 samples showed inconsistencies in the precision for schistocytes. For WBC differentials, the overall agreement between pre-classification results and user-verified results was 89.4%. Except for basophils, normal WBCs showed a good correlation between DI-60 (after user verification) and manual counts. The sensitivities in detecting immature granulocytes, blasts, atypical lymphocytes, and normoblasts were 85.9%, 92.0%, 37.5%, and 77.6%, respectively. Although the total assay time of DI-60 was longer than that of manual review, the hands-on time was considerably shorter with a difference of 144.1 s/slide for abnormal samples. CONCLUSION: DI-60 demonstrated acceptable performance for normal samples. However, for abnormal WBC differentials and RBC morphology characterization, it should be utilized carefully. DI-60 may contribute to an improvement in laboratory efficiency with increased feasibility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kweon et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: