White blood cell differentials performance of a new automated digital cell morphology analyzer: Mindray MC-80

Performance comparison of two automated digital morphology analyzers for leukocyte differential in patients with malignant hematological diseases: Mindray MC-80 and Sysmex DI-60

BACKGROUND

The MC-80 (Mindray, Shenzhen, China), a newly available artificial intelligence (AI)-based digital morphology analyzer, is the focus of this study. We aim to compare the leukocyte differential performance of the Mindray MC-80 with that of the Sysmex DI-60 and the gold standard, manual microscopy.

METHODS

A total of 100 abnormal peripheral blood (PB) smears were compared across the MC-80, DI-60, and manual microscopy. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive value, and efficiency were calculated according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) EP12-A2 guidelines. Comparisons were made using Bland-Altman analysis and Passing-Bablok regression analysis. Additionally, within-run imprecision was evaluated using five samples, each with varying percentages of mature leukocytes and blasts, in accordance with CLSI EP05-A3 guidelines.

RESULTS

The within-run coefficient of variation (%CV) of the MC-80 for most cell classes in the five samples was lower than that of the DI-60. Sensitivities for the MC-80 ranged from 98.2% for nucleated red blood cells (NRBC) to 28.6% for reactive lymphocytes. The DI-60's sensitivities varied between 100% for basophils and reactive lymphocytes, and 11.1% for metamyelocytes. Both analyzers demonstrated high specificity, negative predictive value, and efficiency, with over 90% for most cell classes. However, the DI-60 showed relatively lower specificity for lymphocytes (73.2%) and lower efficiency for blasts and lymphocytes (80.1% and 78.6%, respectively) compared with the MC-80. Bland-Altman analysis indicated that the absolute mean differences (%) ranged from 0.01 to 4.57 in MC-80 versus manual differential and 0.01 to 3.39 in DI-60 versus manual differential. After verification by technicians, both analyzers exhibited a very high correlation (r = 0.90-1.00) with the manual differential results in neutrophils, lymphocytes, and blasts.

CONCLUSIONS

The Mindray MC-80 demonstrated good performance for leukocyte differential in PB smears, notably exhibiting higher sensitivity for blasts identification than the DI-60.

Enhancing thalassemia gene carrier identification in non-anemic populations using artificial intelligence erythrocyte morphology analysis and machine learning

BACKGROUND

Non-anemic thalassemia trait (TT) accounted for a high proportion of TT cases in South China.

OBJECTIVE

To use artificial intelligence (AI) analysis of erythrocyte morphology and machine learning (ML) to identify TT gene carriers in a non-anemic population.

METHODS

Digital morphological data from 76 TT gene carriers and 97 controls were collected. The AI technology-based Mindray MC-100i was used to quantitatively analyze the percentage of abnormal erythrocytes. Further, ML was used to construct a prediction model.

RESULTS

Non-anemic TT carriers accounted for over 60% of the TT cases. Random Forest was selected as the prediction model and named TT@Normal. The TT@Normal algorithm showed outstanding performance in the training, validation, and external validation sets and could efficiently identify TT carriers in the non-anemic population. The top three weights in the TT@Normal model were the target cells, microcytes, and teardrop cells. Elevated percentages of abnormal erythrocytes should raise a strong suspicion of being a TT gene carrier. TT@Normal could be promoted and used as a visualization and sharing tool. It is accessible through a URL link and can be used by medical staff online to predict the possibility of TT gene carriage in a non-anemic population.

CONCLUSIONS

The ML-based model TT@Normal could efficiently identify TT carriers in non-anemic people. Elevated percentages of target cells, microcytes, and teardrop cells should raise a strong suspicion of being a TT gene carrier.

Performance Assessment of Sysmex DI-60: Is Digital Morphology Analyzer Reliable for White Blood Cell Differentials in Body Fluids?

BACKGROUND

Few studies have evaluated digital morphology (DM) analyzers on body fluids (BF). We evaluated the performance of a DM analyzer, Sysmex DI-60 (Sysmex, Kobe, Japan) for white blood cell (WBC) differentials in BF samples.

METHODS

In five BF samples (two pleural fluids and three ascites) containing a single, dominant cell type (>80%, neutrophils, lymphocytes, macrophages, abnormal lymphocytes, and malignant cells in each sample), we evaluated the precision of the DI-60 and compared the WBC differentials and turnaround times (TAT) between DI-60 and manual counting.

RESULTS

The precision of the DI-60 pre-classification and verification was excellent (%CV, 0.01-3.16%). After verification, the DI-60 showed high sensitivity, specificity, and efficiency (ranges: 90.8-98.1%, 96.8-97.9%, and 92.5-98.0%, respectively) for the dominant cell types in neutrophil- and lymphocyte-dominant samples. For all samples, the DI-60 and manual counting showed high correlations for major cell types (neutrophils, lymphocytes, macrophages, and others, r = 0.72 to 0.94) after verification. The agreement between the pre-classification and verification of the DI-60 was strong in the neutrophil-dominant sample (κ = 0.81). The DI-60 showed a significantly longer TAT (min: s) than manual counting for all samples (median TAT/slide: 6:28 vs. 1:53, p < 0.0001), with remarkable differences in abnormal lymphocyte- and malignant cell-dominant samples (21:05 vs. 2:06; 12:34 vs. 2:25).

CONCLUSIONS

The DI-60 may provide reliable data in neutrophil- and lymphocyte-dominant BF samples. However, it may require longer times and higher workloads for WBC differentials especially in BF samples containing atypical cells. Further improvement would be needed before applying DM analyzers for routine clinical practice in BF analysis.