Performance evaluation of the CellaVision DM96 system: WBC differentials by automated digital image analysis supported by an artificial neural network

American Journal of Clinical Pathology

Volumn 124, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 770-781

  Kratz, Alexander ^a,b   Bengtsson, Hans Inge ^c   Casey, Jeanne E ^a   Keefe, Joan M ^a   Beatrice, Gail H ^a   Grzybek, Debera Y ^a   Lewandrowski, Kent B ^a,b   Van Cott, Elizabeth M ^a,b  

^a MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c Ideon Science Park   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Dematology analyzers; Differentials; Image analysis; Laboratory automation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; AUTOANALYZER; AUTOMATION; CLINICAL LABORATORY; ERYTHROCYTE COUNT; HEMATOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; IMAGE ANALYSIS; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LABORATORY PERSONNEL; LABORATORY TEST; LEUKOCYTE DIFFERENTIAL COUNT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MICROSCOPY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; THROMBOCYTE COUNT;

EID: 27444443069     PISSN: 00029173     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1309/XMB9K0J41LHLATAY     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Ehrlich P. Histologie und Klinik des Blutes. Berlin, Germany: August Hirschwald; 1891.
2. Tatsumi N, Pierre RV. Automated image processing: past, present, and future of blood cell morphology identification. Clin Lab Med. 2002;22:299-315, viii.
3. Simson E, Groner W. The state of the art for the automated WBC differential. Lab Hematol. 1995;1:13-22.
4. Riley RS, Ben-Ezra JM, Massey D, et al. The virtual blood film. Clin Lab Med. 2002;22:317-345.
5. Beksac M, Beksac MS, Tipi VB, et al. An artificial intelligent diagnostic system on differential recognition of hematopoietic cells from microscopic images. Cytometry. 1997;30:145-150.
6. Swolin B, Simonsson P, Backman S, et al. Differential counting of blood leukocytes using automated microscopy and a decision support system based on artificial neural networks: evaluation of DiffMaster Octavia. Clin Lab Haematol. 2003;25:139-147.
7. Brown BA. Routine hematology procedures. In: Hematology: Principles and Procedures. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott; 1993:83-126.
8. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Reference leukocyte differential count (proportional) and evaluation of instrumental methods; Approved document H20-A. Villanova, PA: NCCLS; 1992.
9. Bain BJ. Performing a blood count. In: Blood Cells. A Practical Guide. 3rd ed. Oxford, England: Blackwell Science; 2002:16-51.
10. Rumke CL. Imprecision of ratio-derived differential leukocyte counts. Blood Cells. 1985;11:311-314, 315.
11. Sandhaus L, Dillman CA, Clement R, et al. Errors in the hematology laboratory: why do they occur and what can we do to reduce them? Lab Hematol. 2004;10:197-199.
12. Koepke JA. A delineation of performance criteria for the differentiation of leukocytes. Am J Clin Pathol. 1977;68:202-206.
13. Koepke JA, Dotson MA, Shifman MA. A critical evaluation of the manual/visual differential leukocyte counting method. Blood Cells. 1985;11:173-186.
14. Cornbleet PJ. Clinical utility of the band count. Clin Lab Med. 2002;22:101-136.
15. Rumke CL. Statistical reflections on finding atypical cells. Blood Cells. 1985;11:141-144.
16. Parker EM, Foti JA, Wilbur DC. FocalPoint slide classification algorithms show robust performance in classification of high-grade lesions on SurePath liquid-based cervical cytology slides. Diagn Cytopathol. 2004;30:107-110.
17. Wilbur DC, Prey MU, Miller WM, et al. AutoPap system detection of infections and benign cellular changes: results from primary screener clinical trials. Diagn Cytopathol. 1999;21:355-358.