ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2025
Performance evaluation of the new Dymind automated hematology analyzer.
Article in Practical laboratory medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The Dymind automated hematology analyzer includes the five-part analyzers DF55 and DH76 and the six-part analyzer DH615, which features reticulocyte parameters and an artificial intelligence-driven analysis technology. This study evaluated the performance of these analyzers in assessing precision and conducting method comparisons to determine the diagnostic accuracy and clinical efficacy of the Dymind automated system. Methods: We assessed precision and conducted a method comparison by analyzing complete blood count (CBC) and white blood cell (WBC) differential data from the Dymind DF55, DH76, and DH615. Results were compared with those from the Sysmex XN-3000 analyzer. Results: The Dymind-series analyzers demonstrated high between-run precision for all CBC and WBC differential parameters. Method comparison revealed a strong correlation (r = 0.80-0.99) between the Dymind and Sysmex analyzers for most CBC parameters, except for mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration and basophil counts. Conclusions: The Dymind-series analyzer exhibited a strong analytical performance across all standard CBC and WBC differential count parameters, validating their precision and comparability with a reference system for routine hematological testing.
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.