Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35480040›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in physiology2022

Automating Pitted Red Blood Cell Counts Using Deep Neural Network Analysis: A New Method for Measuring Splenic Function in Sickle Cell Anaemia.

Amina Nardo-Marino, Thomas H Braunstein, Jesper Petersen, John N Brewin, Mathis N Mottelson, Thomas N Williams, Jørgen A L Kurtzhals, David C Rees, Andreas Glenthøj

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 3D quantitative phase imagingRSC advances · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Amina Nardo-MarinoCentre for Haemoglobinopathies, Department of Haematology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Thomas H BraunsteinCore Facility for Integrated Microscopy, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jesper PetersenCentre for Haemoglobinopathies, Department of Haematology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
John N BrewinDepartment of Haematological Medicine, King's College Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Mathis N MottelsonCentre for Haemoglobinopathies, Department of Haematology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Thomas N WilliamsKEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Kilifi, Kenya.
Jørgen A L KurtzhalsCentre for Medical Parasitology, Department of Immunology and Microbiology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
David C ReesDepartment of Haematological Medicine, King's College Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Andreas GlenthøjCentre for Haemoglobinopathies, Department of Haematology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Copenhagen University Hospital · DKKing's College Hospital · GBRigshospitalet · DKImperial College London · GBKing's College London · GBUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The spleen plays an important role in the body's defence against bacterial infections. Measuring splenic function is of interest in multiple conditions, including sickle cell anaemia (SCA), where spleen injury occurs early in life. Unfortunately, there is no direct and simple way of measuring splenic function, and it is rarely assessed in clinical or research settings. Manual counts of pitted red blood cells (RBCs) observed with differential interference contrast (DIC) microscopy is a well-validated surrogate biomarker of splenic function. The method, however, is both user-dependent and laborious. In this study, we propose a new automated workflow for counting pitted RBCs using deep neural network analysis. Secondly, we assess the durability of fixed RBCs for pitted RBC counts over time. We included samples from 48 children with SCA and 10 healthy controls. Cells were fixed in paraformaldehyde and examined using an oil-immersion objective, and microscopy images were recorded with a DIC setup. Manual pitted RBC counts were performed by examining a minimum of 500 RBCs for pits, expressing the proportion of pitted RBCs as a percentage (%PIT). Automated pitted RBC counts were generated by first segmenting DIC images using a Zeiss Intellesis deep learning model, recognising and segmenting cells and pits from background. Subsequently, segmented images were analysed using a small ImageJ macro language script. Selected samples were stored for 24 months, and manual pitted RBC counts performed at various time points. When comparing manual and automated pitted RBC counts, we found the two methods to yield comparable results. Although variability between the measurements increased with higher %PIT, this did not change the diagnosis of asplenia. Furthermore, we found no significant changes in %PIT after storing samples for up to 24 months and under varying temperatures and light exposures. We have shown that automated pitted RBC counts, produced using deep neural network analysis, are comparable to manual counts, and that fixed samples can be stored for long periods of time without affecting the %PIT. Automating pitted RBC counts makes the method less time consuming and results comparable across laboratories.

Indexed as

deep neural networkerythrocytePIT countred blood cellsickle cell anaemiasickle cell diseasespleensplenic function

Identifiers

PMID35480040
PMCPMC9037235
OpenAlexW4223496164

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.