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

Xianfei Ye 1, 2
Lijuan Fang 3
Yunying Chen 4
Jixiang Tong 5
Xiaoni Ning 3
Lanjun Feng 3
Yuting Xu 5
Dagan Yang 1
2
 
Key Laboratory of Clinical In Vitro Diagnostic Techniques of Zhejiang Province Hangzhou People's Republic of China
3
 
Hangzhou Dian Medical Laboratory Center Co., Ltd Hangzhou People's Republic of China
4
 
Department of Laboratory Medicine Hangzhou Children's Hospital Hangzhou People's Republic of China
Publication typeJournal Article
Publication date2024-01-11
scimago Q2
wos Q2
SJR0.612
CiteScore4.4
Impact factor2.3
ISSN17515521, 1751553X
PubMed ID:  38212663
General Medicine
Clinical Biochemistry
Hematology
Biochemistry (medical)
Abstract
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.

Found 
Found 

Top-30

Journals

1
Biosensors
1 publication, 16.67%
International Journal of Laboratory Hematology
1 publication, 16.67%
Frontiers in Oncology
1 publication, 16.67%
Medicine (United States)
1 publication, 16.67%
The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine
1 publication, 16.67%
Diagnostics
1 publication, 16.67%
1

Publishers

1
2
MDPI
2 publications, 33.33%
Wiley
1 publication, 16.67%
Frontiers Media S.A.
1 publication, 16.67%
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
1 publication, 16.67%
Oxford University Press
1 publication, 16.67%
1
2
  • We do not take into account publications without a DOI.
  • Statistics recalculated weekly.

Are you a researcher?

Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
Metrics
6
Share
Cite this
GOST |
Cite this
GOST Copy
Ye X. et al. Performance comparison of two automated digital morphology analyzers for leukocyte differential in patients with malignant hematological diseases: Mindray MC‐80 and Sysmex DI‐60 // International Journal of Laboratory Hematology. 2024. Vol. 46. No. 3.
GOST all authors (up to 50) Copy
Ye X., Fang L., Chen Y., Tong J., Ning X., Feng L., Xu Y., Yang D. Performance comparison of two automated digital morphology analyzers for leukocyte differential in patients with malignant hematological diseases: Mindray MC‐80 and Sysmex DI‐60 // International Journal of Laboratory Hematology. 2024. Vol. 46. No. 3.
RIS |
Cite this
RIS Copy
TY - JOUR
DO - 10.1111/ijlh.14227
UR - https://doi.org/10.1111/ijlh.14227
TI - Performance comparison of two automated digital morphology analyzers for leukocyte differential in patients with malignant hematological diseases: Mindray MC‐80 and Sysmex DI‐60
T2 - International Journal of Laboratory Hematology
AU - Ye, Xianfei
AU - Fang, Lijuan
AU - Chen, Yunying
AU - Tong, Jixiang
AU - Ning, Xiaoni
AU - Feng, Lanjun
AU - Xu, Yuting
AU - Yang, Dagan
PY - 2024
DA - 2024/01/11
PB - Wiley
IS - 3
VL - 46
PMID - 38212663
SN - 1751-5521
SN - 1751-553X
ER -
BibTex
Cite this
BibTex (up to 50 authors) Copy
@article{2024_Ye,
author = {Xianfei Ye and Lijuan Fang and Yunying Chen and Jixiang Tong and Xiaoni Ning and Lanjun Feng and Yuting Xu and Dagan Yang},
title = {Performance comparison of two automated digital morphology analyzers for leukocyte differential in patients with malignant hematological diseases: Mindray MC‐80 and Sysmex DI‐60},
journal = {International Journal of Laboratory Hematology},
year = {2024},
volume = {46},
publisher = {Wiley},
month = {jan},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/ijlh.14227},
number = {3},
doi = {10.1111/ijlh.14227}
}