ArticleScientific reports2024
Performance evaluation of the digital morphology analyser Sysmex DI-60 for white blood cell differentials in abnormal samples.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advantages of AI-based whole blood film scanning for blast detection in markedly leucopenic blood films.Annals of hematology · 2025Article
- The Diagnostic Performance of the Cellavision DC-1 Digital Morphology Analyser on Leukaemia Samples.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Multi-Channel Cellytics for Rapid and Cost-Effective Monitoring of Leukocyte Activation.Biosensors · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sysmex DI-60 enumerates and classifies leukocytes. Limited research has evaluated the performance of Sysmex DI-60 in abnormal samples, and most focused on leukopenic samples. We evaluate the efficacy of DI-60 in determining white blood cell (WBC) differentials in normal and abnormal samples in different WBC count. Peripheral blood smears (n = 166) were categorised into normal control and disease groups, and further divided into moderate and severe leucocytosis, mild leucocytosis, normal, mild leukopenia, and moderate and severe leukopenia groups based on WBC count. DI-60 preclassification and verification and manual counting results were assessed using Bland-Altman and Passing-Bablok regression analyses. The Kappa test compared the concordance in the abnormal cell detection between DI-60 and manual counting. DI-60 exhibited notable overall sensitivity and specificity for all cells, except basophils. The correlation between the DI-60 preclassification and manual counting was high for segmented neutrophils, band neutrophils, lymphocytes, and blasts, and improved for all cell classes after verification. The mean difference between DI-60 and manual counting for all cell classes was significantly high in moderate and severe leucocytosis (WBC > 30.0 × 10
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.