Comparison of an automated digital cell morphology analysis system with manual counting

Abstract Background Bionovation's CSFA800 is a new automated digital cell imaging analyzer. We evaluated the performance of the CSFA800 by comparing it with artificial peripheral blood white blood cell counting. Methods According to inclusion and exclusion criteria, 131 randomly selected sample...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Juan Jiao, Xin Yin, Jiali Ma, Yinglong Xia, Jianxia Xu, Shaozhe Zhao, Jie Liu
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2023-06-01
Series:iLabmed
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/ila2.10
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849239037552885760
author Juan Jiao
Xin Yin
Jiali Ma
Yinglong Xia
Jianxia Xu
Shaozhe Zhao
Jie Liu
author_facet Juan Jiao
Xin Yin
Jiali Ma
Yinglong Xia
Jianxia Xu
Shaozhe Zhao
Jie Liu
author_sort Juan Jiao
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Background Bionovation's CSFA800 is a new automated digital cell imaging analyzer. We evaluated the performance of the CSFA800 by comparing it with artificial peripheral blood white blood cell counting. Methods According to inclusion and exclusion criteria, 131 randomly selected samples (77 abnormal samples and 54 normal samples) were compared. Correlations between automated and manual counting results were analyzed. Manual counting was carried out according to the guidelines of the Association of Clinical and Laboratory Standards. Results Counts of neutrophils, lymphocytes, monocytes, eosinophils, basophils, and immature granulocytes obtained from CSFA800 and artificial methods were linearly and positively correlated, with R values of 0.73, 0.65, 0.24, 0.2, 0.4, and 0.63, respectively, all p < 0.05. Therefore, correlations between CSFA800 and manual counting are acceptable. Compared with the DI‐60 Automated Digital Cell Morphology System (DI‐60; Sysmex), CSFA800 is more efficient and can analyze 20,000 cells in 1 min. However, the overall accuracy of CSFA800 is not as good as DI‐60, although its counting performance is better for basophils. Conclusions The performance of CSFA800 for WBC counts is acceptable, and it displayed good performance for neutrophils, lymphocytes, and immature granulocytes. Compared to DI‐60, CSFA800 is more efficient but has slightly lower overall accuracy. To some extent, CSFA800 is helpful to optimize the clinical laboratory workflow and improve the working efficiency of inspectors.
format Article
id doaj-art-786a0f8d260c48c5a662f94159d47769
institution Kabale University
issn 2834-443X
2834-4448
language English
publishDate 2023-06-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series iLabmed
spelling doaj-art-786a0f8d260c48c5a662f94159d477692025-08-20T04:01:16ZengWileyiLabmed2834-443X2834-44482023-06-0111222810.1002/ila2.10Comparison of an automated digital cell morphology analysis system with manual countingJuan Jiao0Xin Yin1Jiali Ma2Yinglong Xia3Jianxia Xu4Shaozhe Zhao5Jie Liu6Department of Clinical Laboratory The Seventh Medical Center Chinese PLA General Hospital Beijing ChinaDepartment of Public Health Shanxi Medical University Jinzhong Shanxi ChinaDepartment of Clinical Laboratory The Seventh Medical Center Chinese PLA General Hospital Beijing ChinaDepartment of Clinical Laboratory The Seventh Medical Center Chinese PLA General Hospital Beijing ChinaDepartment of Clinical Laboratory The Seventh Medical Center Chinese PLA General Hospital Beijing ChinaDepartment of Clinical Laboratory The Seventh Medical Center Chinese PLA General Hospital Beijing ChinaDepartment of Clinical Laboratory The Seventh Medical Center Chinese PLA General Hospital Beijing ChinaAbstract Background Bionovation's CSFA800 is a new automated digital cell imaging analyzer. We evaluated the performance of the CSFA800 by comparing it with artificial peripheral blood white blood cell counting. Methods According to inclusion and exclusion criteria, 131 randomly selected samples (77 abnormal samples and 54 normal samples) were compared. Correlations between automated and manual counting results were analyzed. Manual counting was carried out according to the guidelines of the Association of Clinical and Laboratory Standards. Results Counts of neutrophils, lymphocytes, monocytes, eosinophils, basophils, and immature granulocytes obtained from CSFA800 and artificial methods were linearly and positively correlated, with R values of 0.73, 0.65, 0.24, 0.2, 0.4, and 0.63, respectively, all p < 0.05. Therefore, correlations between CSFA800 and manual counting are acceptable. Compared with the DI‐60 Automated Digital Cell Morphology System (DI‐60; Sysmex), CSFA800 is more efficient and can analyze 20,000 cells in 1 min. However, the overall accuracy of CSFA800 is not as good as DI‐60, although its counting performance is better for basophils. Conclusions The performance of CSFA800 for WBC counts is acceptable, and it displayed good performance for neutrophils, lymphocytes, and immature granulocytes. Compared to DI‐60, CSFA800 is more efficient but has slightly lower overall accuracy. To some extent, CSFA800 is helpful to optimize the clinical laboratory workflow and improve the working efficiency of inspectors.https://doi.org/10.1002/ila2.10comparisonCSFA800manual countingmorphological classification
spellingShingle Juan Jiao
Xin Yin
Jiali Ma
Yinglong Xia
Jianxia Xu
Shaozhe Zhao
Jie Liu
Comparison of an automated digital cell morphology analysis system with manual counting
iLabmed
comparison
CSFA800
manual counting
morphological classification
title Comparison of an automated digital cell morphology analysis system with manual counting
title_full Comparison of an automated digital cell morphology analysis system with manual counting
title_fullStr Comparison of an automated digital cell morphology analysis system with manual counting
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of an automated digital cell morphology analysis system with manual counting
title_short Comparison of an automated digital cell morphology analysis system with manual counting
title_sort comparison of an automated digital cell morphology analysis system with manual counting
topic comparison
CSFA800
manual counting
morphological classification
url https://doi.org/10.1002/ila2.10
work_keys_str_mv AT juanjiao comparisonofanautomateddigitalcellmorphologyanalysissystemwithmanualcounting
AT xinyin comparisonofanautomateddigitalcellmorphologyanalysissystemwithmanualcounting
AT jialima comparisonofanautomateddigitalcellmorphologyanalysissystemwithmanualcounting
AT yinglongxia comparisonofanautomateddigitalcellmorphologyanalysissystemwithmanualcounting
AT jianxiaxu comparisonofanautomateddigitalcellmorphologyanalysissystemwithmanualcounting
AT shaozhezhao comparisonofanautomateddigitalcellmorphologyanalysissystemwithmanualcounting
AT jieliu comparisonofanautomateddigitalcellmorphologyanalysissystemwithmanualcounting