Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

The automated differential; pattern recognition systems, precision, and the spun smear

T C Kingsley

    Blood Cells
    |January 1, 1980
    PubMed
    Summary

    This study compared automated blood cell counters (ADC-500, Hematrak 360) to manual methods. Automated 500-cell differentials offer superior precision, though artifacts like "star artifacts" and warped slides can cause outliers.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    Plastic or paraffin?

    Lancet (London, England)·1989
    Same author

    Four variations of the Mondini inner ear malformations as seen in microdissections.

    American journal of otolaryngology·1984
    Same author

    Hereditary deafness with hydrops and anomalous calcium phosphate deposits.

    American journal of otolaryngology·1981
    Same author

    Asymptomatic intracochlear neurinoma. A temporal bone report.

    Archives of otolaryngology (Chicago, Ill. : 1960)·1981
    Same author

    Aminoglycoside-induced cochlear pathology in man.

    Acta oto-laryngologica. Supplementum·1981
    Same author

    Extraskeletal chondroblastoma. A report of the first recorded case.

    Cancer·1971

    Area of Science:

    • Hematology
    • Clinical Pathology
    • Laboratory Automation

    Background:

    • Automated cell counting systems are increasingly used in clinical laboratories.
    • Manual differential counts are the gold standard but are labor-intensive.
    • Evaluating automated systems against manual methods is crucial for diagnostic accuracy.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To compare the precision of two automated differential pattern recognition systems (ADC-500 and Hematrak 360) against the manual eye method.
    • To identify and analyze sources of outlier data points in automated and manual blood smear analysis.
    • To discuss the implications of method-related artifacts on the reliability of 500-cell differentials.

    Main Methods:

    • Utilized normal patient blood samples for a duplicate study.
    • Compared the ADC-500 and Hematrak 360 systems with the manual eye method.
    • Employed both spun and wedge smear preparations for analysis.

    Main Results:

    • The 500-cell differential demonstrated superior precision compared to other methods.
    • Occasional outlier data points were observed with spun smears for both manual and automated methods.
    • Identified "star artifacts" and warped glass slides as significant contributors to data outliers.

    Conclusions:

    • Automated 500-cell differentials provide enhanced precision in blood cell analysis.
    • Artifacts in smear preparation and slide quality can impact the accuracy of both manual and automated differential counts.
    • Understanding and mitigating these artifacts is essential for the reliable application of automated differential technology.

    Related Experiment Videos