Initial performance evaluation of the UniCel<sup>®</sup> DxH slide maker/stainer Coulter<sup>®</sup> cellular analysis system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite the advancements in instrumentation within hematology laboratories, there is still a need for review of a peripheral blood film (PBF). For a thorough PBF evaluation, it is critical that a well spread and stained film is available. METHODS: In this study, we evaluated an automatic slide maker/stainer (DxH-SMS, Beckman Coulter) compared with manually prepared blood films on 124 normal and abnormal samples. The primary goal of the study was to determine whether or not the DxH-SMS was able to consistently and reproducibly prepare and stain blood films of exemplary quality, without carryover between specimens. Additionally, repeatability of white blood cell distribution, comparability of morphology to reference methodologies, and grading of acceptance criteria outlined in the CLSI document H20-A2 were assessed. RESULTS: Carryover was not an issue and repeatability was within expected limits. There was excellent agreement of the 5-part differential between the automated blood films made by the DxH-SMS compared with the manually prepared reference blood film. There was no difference in identification and enumeration of blasts, variant lymphocytes, or nucleated red blood cells (P < 0.05). Red cell morphology showed excellent agreement. CONCLUSION: Blood films prepared by the DxH-SMS are of excellent quality, reproducible, and compare well with manually prepared slides. Introduction to our laboratory has improved and standardized slide quality.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".