How Reproducible Is the Data from Sysmex DI-60 in Leukopenic Samples?

Digital morphology (DM) analyzers are widely applied in clinical practice. It is necessary to evaluate performances of DM analyzers by focusing on leukopenic samples. We evaluated the analytical performance, including precision, of a Sysmex DI-60 system (Sysmex, Kobe, Japan) on white blood cell (WBC) differentials in leukopenic samples. In a total of 40 peripheral blood smears divided into four groups according to WBC count (normal, mild, moderate, and severe leukopenia; each group n = 10), we evaluated precision of WBC preclassificaiton by DI-60. %coefficients of variation (%CVs) of precision varied for each sample and for each cell class; the fewer cells per slide, the higher %CV. The overall specificity and efficiency were high for all cell classes except plasma cells (95.9–99.9% and 90.0–99.4%, respectively). The largest absolute value of mean difference between DI-60 and manual count in each group was: 10.77, normal; 10.22, mild leukopenia; 19.09, moderate leukopenia; 47.74, severe leukopenia. This is the first study that evaluated the analytical performance of DI-60 on WBC differentials in leukopenic samples as the main subject. DI-60 showed significantly different performance depending on WBC count. DM analyzers should be evaluated separately in leukopenic samples, even if the overall performance was acceptable.

Performance of digital morphology analyzer Vision Pro on white blood cell differentials

Objectives Vision Pro (West Medica, Perchtoldsdorf, Austria) is a recently developed digital morphology analyzer. We evaluated the performance of Vision Pro on white blood cell (WBC) differentials. Methods In a total of 200 peripheral blood smear samples (100 normal and 100 abnormal samples), WBC preclassification and reclassification by Vision Pro were evaluated and compared with manual WBC count, according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines (H20-A2). Results The overall sensitivity was high for normal WBCs and nRBCs (80.1–98.0%). The overall specificity and overall efficiency were high for all cell classes (98.1–100.0% and 97.7–99.9%, respectively). The absolute values of mean differences between Vision Pro and manual count ranged from 0.01 to 1.31. In leukopenic samples, those values ranged from 0.09 to 2.01. For normal WBCs, Vision Pro preclassification and manual count showed moderate or high correlations (r=0.52–0.88) except for basophils (r=0.34); after reclassification, the correlation between Vision Pro and manual count was improved (r=0.36–0.90). Conclusions This is the first study that evaluated the performance of Vision Pro on WBC differentials. Vision Pro showed reliable analytical performance on WBC differentials with improvement after reclassification. Vision Pro could help improve laboratory workflow.

Multicentric evaluation of analytical performances digital morphology with respect to the reference methods by manual optical microscopy

AimsOptical microscopic (OM) evaluation of peripheral blood (PB) cells is still a crucial step of the laboratory haematological workflow. The morphological cell analysis is time-consuming and expensive and it requires skilled operator. To address these challenges, automated image-processing systems, as digital morphology (DM), were developed in the last few years. The aim of this multicentre study, performed according to international guidelines, is to verify the analytical performance of DM compared with manual OM, the reference method.MethodsFour hundred and ninety PB samples were evaluated. For each sample, two May Grunwald-stained and Giemsa-stained smears were performed and the morphological evaluation of cells was analysed with both DM and OM. In addition, the assessment times of both methods were recorded.ResultsComparison of DM versus OM methods was assessed with Passing-Bablok and Deming fit regression analysis: slopes ranged between 0.17 for atypical, reactive lymphocytes and plasma cells (LY(AT)) and 1.24 for basophils, and the intercepts ranged between −0.09 for blasts and 0.40 for LY(AT). The Bland-Altman bias ranged between −6.5% for eosinophils and 21.8% for meta-myemielocytes. The diagnostic agreement between the two methods was 0.98. The mean of assessment times were 150 s and 250 s for DM and OM, respectively.ConclusionDM shows excellent performance. Approximately only 1.6% of PB smears need the OM revision, giving advantages in terms of efficiency, standardisation and assessment time of morphological analysis of the cells. The findings of this study may provide useful information regarding the use of DM to improve the haematological workflow.

Piru se on tuo, ei se ole karhu olemassakhan

Artikkeli käsittelee olemassa-adverbiaalin esiintymistä ja merkitystä suomen vanhoissa kansanmurteissa. Niin yleiskielessä kuin murteissa olemassa toimii adverbiaali-täydennyksenä sellaisessa kopulalauseessa, jossa ei ole paikan adverbiaalia (esim. radio oli olemassa). Tällaisten rakenteiden lisäksi olemassa esiintyy vanhoissa kansan-murteissa adverbiaalimääritteenä muissa lausetyypeissä. Digitaalisesta muoto-opin arkistosta, Lauseopin arkistosta sekä Suomen kielen näytteitä -kokoelmasta poimitun 275 esimerkin aineiston analyysi osoittaa, että olemassa esiintyy vanhoissa kansan-murteissa määritteenä kopula-, predikatiivi-, omistus-, kvanttori-, intransitiivi- ja transitiivi-lauseessa. Määritteenä toimivan olemassa-adverbiaalin merkitys ei kuitenkaan ole aina ilmeinen. Artikkelissa tarkastellaan olemassa-adverbiaalin määritekäytön semantiikkaa kognitiivisessa kehyksessä. Analyysi osoittaa, että adverbiaalin merkitys riippuu paljolti siitä lausekonstruktiosta, jossa sana esiintyy. Esimerkiksi kopulalauseen adverbiaalimääritteenä toimiva olemassa ilmaisee subjektin tarkoitteen eksistenssiä puhehetkeä laajemmin mutta myös asumista määräpaikassa. Omanlaisensa merkitys olemassa-määritteellä on transitiivi- ja intransitiivilauseissa, joissa se toimii kvantifioivana määritteenä tai episteemisenä kiellonvahvistajana. Vanhojen kansanmurteiden olemassa-sana puoltaa näkemystä, että lauserakennetta on hyvä tarkastella yksittäisiä lauseenjäseniä laajemmista konstruktioista käsin ja hakea syntaktisen kuvauksen pohjaksi aineistoa yleiskielen lisäksi murteista ja muusta puhekielestä. It’s the devil, definitely not a bear: A semantic and syntactic analysis of the adverbial olemassa in old Finnish dialects This article addresses the usage and meaning of olemassa ‘in being / existence’ as an adverbial modifier in old Finnish folk dialects. In the standard language as well as in dialects, olemassa is used as a compulsory adverbial in copula clauses that lack a locative adverbial (e.g. radio oli olemassa ‘radio existed’). In addition to these, olemassa is used in old dialects as an optional modifier in other sentence types. The data – compiled from the materials of Digital Morphology Archives for Finnish Dialects, The Finnish Dialect Syntax Archive, and Samples of Spoken Finnish – consists of 275 examples and demonstrates that olemassa is used in old dialects in copula, predicative, possessive, quantifier, intransitive and transitive clauses. However, when used as an optional adverbial, the meaning of olemassa is not always obvious. The analysis illustrates that the meaning of olemassa depends greatly on the sentence type in which it is used. For example, in a copula sentence, the word olemassa, as an optional adverbial, expresses the existence of the subject’s referent in a broader sense than merely in the current speech-act situation, or living in some particular residence. The olemassa adverbial also has its own type of meanings in transitive and intransitive sentences where it can be understood as a quantitative modifier or epistemic reinforcer of negation. The olemassa adverbial modifier of old Finnish folk dialects supports the view that syntactic structures should be analysed as constructions larger than mere lexeme constituents. In addition, syntactic description would benefit from more data regarding dialects and other colloquial language.