Cited by 51Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlDigital Imaging for Blood DiseasesHematological disorders and diagnostics

An artificial intelligence‐assisted diagnostic platform for rapid near‐patient hematology

Open access
Bachar, Neta, Benbassat, Dana, Brailovsky, David, Eshel, Yochay, Glück, Dan, Levner, Daniel, Levy, Sarah, Pecker, Sharon +5 more·2021·American Journal of Hematology

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Hematology analyzers capable of performing complete blood count (CBC) have lagged in their prevalence at the point‐of‐care. Sight OLO (Sight Diagnostics, Israel) is a novel hematological platform which provides a 19‐parameter, five‐part differential CBC, and is designed to address the limitations in current point‐of‐care hematology analyzers using recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and computer vision. Accuracy, repeatability, and flagging capabilities of OLO were compared with the Sysmex XN‐Series System (Sysmex, Japan). Matrix studies compared performance using venous, capillary and direct‐from‐fingerprick blood samples. Regression analysis shows strong concordance between OLO and the Sysmex XN, demonstrating that OLO performs with high accuracy for all CBC parameters. High repeatability and reproducibility were demonstrated for most of the testing parameters. The analytical performance of the OLO hematology analyzer was validated in a multicenter clinical laboratory setting, demonstrating its accuracy and comparability to clinical laboratory‐based hematology analyzers. Furthermore, the study demonstrated the validity of CBC analysis of samples collected directly from fingerpricks.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ajh.26295

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Recent advances in point-of-care testing include the availability of rapid haematology analysers, which offer results within 10 min.

    “Moreover, recent advances in point-of-care testing include the availability of rapid haematology analysers, which offer results within 10 min,28”

    From Real-world evaluation of rapid and laboratory-free COVID-19 triage for emergency care: external validation and pilot deployment of artificial intelligence driven screening (2022) · cites this paper as [28]

    The Introduction (page not provided) discusses near-patient complete-blood-count analyzers, and Methods > The device describes Sight OLO as designed for point-of-care use and displaying results. Neither passage establishes that results are available within 10 minutes; searches for “10 min,” “minutes,” and turnaround time found no such result-time claim. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 18 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [14]CLSI H20‐A2. Reference Leukocyte (WBC) Differential Count (Proportional) and Evaluation of Instrumental Methods; Approved Standard—Second Edition. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2007.
  2. [15]CLSI H26‐A2. Validation, Verification, and Quality Assurance of Automated Hematology Analyzers; Approved Standard—Second Edition. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2010.
  3. [16]CLSI EP09‐A3. Measurement Procedure Comparison and Bias Estimation Using Patient Samples; Approved Guideline—Third Edition. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2013.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bachar, N., Benbassat, D., Brailovsky, D., Eshel, Y., Glück, D., Levner, D., Levy, S., Pecker, S., Yurkovsky, E., Zait, A., Sever, C., Kratz, A., & Brugnara, C.
Affiliations
  • S.D. Sight Diagnostics LTD Tel Aviv‐Jaffa Israel
  • TriCore Reference Laboratories Albuquerque New Mexico USA
  • NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital (US)
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Brugnara, Carlo
Venue
American Journal of Hematology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-08-02
Volume
96
Issue
10
Pages
1264-1274
ISSN
  • 0361-8609 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-8652
OpenAlex
W3158050822
Cited by
51
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 2
FWCI
4.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Hematology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Imaging for Blood Diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Hematological disorders and diagnostics
Keywords
complete blood count, artificial intelligence, computer vision, capillary blood, venous blood, analytical accuracy, repeatability, automated blood cell counting
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Blood Cell Count, Equipment Design, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Point-of-Care Systems

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review