A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparison of an image cytometry somatic cell count analyzer to a flow cytometry analyzer. | LitMetric

Comparison of an image cytometry somatic cell count analyzer to a flow cytometry analyzer.

JDS Commun

Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907.

Published: November 2023

The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of a small footprint benchtop somatic cell counter based on image cytometry (LactiCyte HD; Page and Pedersen International Ltd., Hopkinton, MA) against a flow cytometer employed at a regional dairy herd improvement (DHI) laboratory. Milk samples collected during monthly DHI testing were split into 2 samples. One sample was evaluated using flow cytometry (Bentley SomaCount FCM; Bentley Instruments, Chaska, MN) at the regional DHI laboratory, whereas the other was evaluated using image cytometry at 2 different image levels (full number of images, 16 pictures per slide; half number of images, 8 pictures per slide). Mean bias of the image cytometer at 16 images was -15,500 cells/mL, whereas at 8 images the bias was 21,800 cells/mL. When considering only cell counts ≤400,000 cells per mL, the bias for both imaging resolutions was positive, meaning the image cytometer read higher than the flow cytometer. Both imaging resolutions (16 and 8) had a concordance correlation coefficient greater than 0.95. Considering ≥200,000 cells/mL to be indicative of subclinical mammary gland infection, the sensitivity and specificity of the image cytometer at 16 images were 92.0% and 91.7%, whereas the sensitivity and specificity of the analyzer at 8 images were 92.0% and 85.7%, respectively. Method precision (repeatability; coefficients of variation) were calculated at 3 different somatic cell counts (100,000, 200,000, and 400,000 cells/mL) where each sample was run repeatedly 12 times. When analyzed at the full number of images the coefficients of variation were 16.9%, 11.7%, and 10.9% for 100,000, 200,000, and 400,000 cells/mL, respectively. Analysis at half the number of images resulted in coefficients of variation of 18.9%, 24.8%, and 8.7% for 100,000, 200,000, and 400,000 cells/mL. We conclude that the image cytometer is an acceptable somatic cell count analyzer for on-farm use for applications such as screening cows for microbiological testing, and that precision is superior when the analysis is performed at the full number of images allowed by the instrument.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10692336PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jdsc.2023-0380DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

number images
20
somatic cell
16
image cytometer
16
image cytometry
12
full number
12
coefficients variation
12
100000 200000
12
200000 400000
12
400000 cells/ml
12
images
9

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!