Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39638966›Full record

ArticleVeterinary clinical pathology2025

Development of criteria to optimize manual smear review of automated complete blood counts using a machine learning model.

Jennifer M Hayes, Mitchell R Hayes, Kristen R Friedrichs, Heather A Simmons

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Jennifer M HayesWisconsin National Primate Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7473-1688
Mitchell R HayesMcArdle Laboratory for Cancer Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Kristen R FriedrichsSchool of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Heather A SimmonsWisconsin National Primate Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.

Funding

WNPRC Supplemental Request for Nonhuman Primate Enclosures to Equip HIV/AIDS-Related Research FacilitiesP51OD011106 · OD · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI Dorota A. Grejner-Brzezinska · 2012 to 2026
$150.7M
EXTRAMURAL RES FACIL CONST: REPRODUCTIVE, GROWTH &DVMT, MENOPAUSEC06RR020141 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON · PI CADWALLADER, MARTIN · 2004 to 2004
$3.6M
EXTRAMURAL REGIONAL FACILITIES CONSTRUCTIONC06RR015459 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON · PI CADWALLADER, MARTIN · 2000 to 2000
$1.9M
NCRR NIH HHS C06 RR015459NCRR NIH HHS C06 RR020141NIH HHS P51 OD011106NIH Office of the Director P51OD011106
6 · The paper itself

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

Macaca fascicularisMacaca mulattaMachine LearningAnimalsBlood Cell CountSensitivity and Specificityflaghematologynonhuman primateslide

Identifiers

PMID39638966
PMCPMC12137682

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.