ArticlePloS one2026
Comparison of CD34+ cell enumeration between flow cytometric analysis and ADAMII-CD34 image-based fluorescence cell counter.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate CD34+ cell enumeration is essential in stem cell transplantation. Flow cytometry (FC) is the standard method to determine optimal collection time of CD34+ stem cells harvesting for peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) transplantation but is costly and requires skilled personnel. The ADAMII-CD34 cell counter may be a feasible alternative for PBSC apheresis samples and for cryopreserved stem cell products which are assessed by manual cell viability counting using the trypan blue exclusion method.
methodsFifty samples were analyzed (PBSC apheresis samples n = 25, cryopreserved stem cell products n = 25) from patients undergoing autologous PBSC transplantation or healthy donors. We assessed the quantitative agreement between methods.
resultsIn the 25 PBSC apheresis samples, FC-based median viable CD34+ absolute count was 764.7 cells/µL (IQR 453.7-1532.5; range 60.5-3233.8). ADAMII-CD34 cell counter and FC showed almost perfect agreement [Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98 to 1.00), bias -0.46% (95% CI: -5.45 to 4.53), upper limit of agreement (LoA) 22.2% (95% CI: 13.5 to 30.8), and lower LoA -23.1% (95% CI: -31.7 to -14.4)]. For cryopreserved stem cell products, viable CD34+ cell dose (×106 cells/kg) measured by the ADAMII-CD34 cell counter and the estimated viable CD34+ cell dose (×106 cells/kg) determined by the trypan blue exclusion method showed poor agreement [Lin's CCC 0.58 (95% CI: 0.31 to 0.76)]. Weighted Deming regression showed proportional bias [95% CI: slope 0.02 to 0.61].
conclusionsQuantitative agreement between the ADAMII-CD34 cell counter and FC for CD34+ enumeration in PBSC apheresis samples was acceptable within the analyzed range. It is user-friendly and more affordable than FC. However, ADAMII-CD34 and the trypan blue exclusion method of cryopreserved stem cell products showed a proportional bias. Further considerations are needed to optimize the process for cryopreserved stem cell products.
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.