Initial performance evaluation of the UniCel<sup>®</sup> DxH 800 Coulter<sup>®</sup> cellular analysis system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Beckman Coulter UniCel® DxH 800 is a hematology analyzer incorporating new electronic and mechanical design with advanced algorithm technology to perform CBC, white blood cell (WBC) differential, nucleated red blood cell (NRBC), and reticulocyte analysis. Evaluation of this instrument was performed in our 800-bed tertiary care hospital and specifically centered upon the correlation of WBC, NRBC, and platelet (PLT) enumeration when compared to a predicate analyzer, the Coulter® LH 780, and flow cytometry (FCM) reference methods. Of particular interest were those samples with morphologically confirmed interference and extreme leukocytosis (evaluated with respect to red blood cell parameter correction). The sample set (n=272) consisted of morphologically normal and hematologically abnormal patients. Correlation of the WBC, PLT, and NRBC showed r(2) values of 0.994, 0.985, and 0.910 for the DxH 800 vs. FCM, respectively. The presence of interfering particles did not affect the accuracy of the DxH 800 with respect to WBC counts. The DxH 800 showed accurate PLT and NRBC counts in the clinically significant low range when compared to FCM. Compared to the LH 780, flagging rates were significantly reduced (NRBC flag), or equivalent (WBC, PLT flag) on the DxH 800. The DxH 800 demonstrated higher sensitivity and specificity for PLTs and NRBCs and achieved a lower NRBC false negative rate compared to the LH 780. The UniCel® DxH 800 represents a significant improvement to previous impedance analyzers in accurately detecting the presence of NRBCs at counts >1/100 WBC. Furthermore, it provides accurate PLT and WBC counts in the presence of interference and improved NRBC flagging efficiency when compared to the LH 780. Correction of red blood cell parameters is appropriate and accurate in cases of extreme leukocytosis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".