Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38317167›Full record

ArticleBMC veterinary research2024

Comparison of Sysmex XN-V body fluid mode and deep-learning-based quantification with manual techniques for total nucleated cell count and differential count for equine bronchoalveolar lavage samples.

Sandra Lapsina, Barbara Riond, Regina Hofmann-Lehmann, Martina Stirn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC veterinary research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

4 authors.

Sandra LapsinaClinical Laboratory, Department of Clinical Diagnostics and Services, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 260, CH-8057, Zurich, Switzerland. sandralapsina@live.com.
Barbara RiondClinical Laboratory, Department of Clinical Diagnostics and Services, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 260, CH-8057, Zurich, Switzerland.
Regina Hofmann-LehmannClinical Laboratory, Department of Clinical Diagnostics and Services, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 260, CH-8057, Zurich, Switzerland.
Martina StirnClinical Laboratory, Department of Clinical Diagnostics and Services, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 260, CH-8057, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) is a diagnostic method for the assessment of the lower respiratory airway health status in horses. Differential cell count and sometimes also total nucleated cell count (TNCC) are routinely measured by time-consuming manual methods, while faster automated methods exist. The aims of this study were to compare: 1) the Sysmex XN-V body fluid (BF) mode with the manual techniques for TNCC and two-part differential into mononuclear and polymorphonuclear cells; 2) the Olympus VS200 slide scanner and software generated deep-learning-based algorithm with manual techniques for four-part differential cell count into alveolar macrophages, lymphocytes, neutrophils, and mast cells. The methods were compared in 69 clinical BAL samples.

resultsIncorrect gating by the Sysmex BF mode was observed on many scattergrams, therefore all samples were reanalyzed with manually set gates. For the TNCC, a proportional and systematic bias with a correlation of r = 0.79 was seen when comparing the Sysmex BF mode with manual methods. For the two-part differential count, a mild constant and proportional bias and a very small mean difference with moderate limits of agreement with a correlation of r = 0.84 and 0.83 were seen when comparing the Sysmex BF mode with manual methods. The Sysmex BF mode classified significantly more samples as abnormal based on the TNCC and the two-part differential compared to the manual method. When comparing the Olympus VS200 deep-learning-based algorithm with manual methods for the four-part differential cell count, a very small bias in the regression analysis and a very small mean difference in the difference plot, as well as a correlation of r = 0.85 to 0.92 were observed for all four cell categories. The Olympus VS200 deep-learning-based algorithm also showed better precision than manual methods for the four-part differential cell count, especially with an increasing number of analyzed cells.

conclusionsThe Sysmex XN-V BF mode can be used for TNCC and two-part differential count measurements after reanalyzing the samples with manually set gates. The Olympus VS200 deep-learning-based algorithm correlates well with the manual methods, while showing better precision and can be used for a four-part differential cell count.

Indexed as

Body FluidsDeep LearningAlgorithmsAnimalsCell CountHorsesLeukocyte CountLymphocytesReproducibility of ResultsArtificial intelligenceBody fluid modeBronchoalveolar lavageDeep-learningDifferential countEquineRegatingSysmexTotal nucleated cell count

Identifiers

PMID38317167
PMCPMC10840287

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.