ArticleVeterinary clinical pathology2025
Development of criteria to optimize manual smear review of automated complete blood counts using a machine learning model.
Article in Veterinary clinical pathology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development of criteria to optimize manual smear review of automated complete blood counts using a machine learning model.Veterinary clinical pathology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundManual blood smear review (MSR) to complement automated CBC results is a labor-intensive process. Efforts have been made to use criteria based on automated hematology analyzer data to identify samples warranting MSR. These efforts have coincided with the emergence of modern data science and machine learning.
objectiveIn this study, we aim to determine if machine learning can reduce manual smear review (MSR) rates while meeting or exceeding the performance of traditional MSR criteria.
method9938 automated CBCs with paired MSRs were performed on samples from rhesus and cynomolgus macaques. The definition of a positive (abnormal) smear was determined. Two expert-derived MSR criteria were created: criteria adapted from published, standardized human laboratory criteria (Adapted International Consensus Guidelines[aICG]) and internally generated criteria (Center Consensus Guidelines [CCG]). An ensemble machine learning model was trained on an independent subset of the data to optimize the balanced accuracy of classification, a combined measure of sensitivity and specificity. The resulting machine learning model and the two expert-derived MSR criteria were applied to a test dataset, and their performance compared.
resultsaICG criteria demonstrated high sensitivity (80.8%) and MSR rate (74.2%) while CCG criteria demonstrated lower sensitivity (57.1%) and MSR rate (36.1%). The machine learning model integrated with CCG criteria had a superior combination of both sensitivity (76.8%) and MSR rate (45.1%) achieving a false negative rate of 1.6%.
conclusionMachine learning in combination with expert-derived criteria can optimize the selection of samples for MSR thus decreasing MSR rates and labor efforts required for CBC performance.
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.