HC 80Ts Verification Report
HC 80Ts Verification Report
HumaCount 80TS
Content
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2
2. Summary of Parameters and Evaluations ...................................................................................................................... 2
Specifications for primary parameters: ..................................................................................................................................................3
3. Repeatability ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3
3.1 Evaluation Description.................................................................................................................................................................3
3.2 Data Description ............................................................................................................................................................................3
3.3 Results ................................................................................................................................................................................................4
3.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................................................5
4. Linearity ............................................................................................................................................................................. 5
4.1 Evaluation Description.................................................................................................................................................................5
4.2 Data Description ............................................................................................................................................................................6
4.3 Results: Linearity Results for Instrument 000004 .............................................................................................................7
4.4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
5 Carryover ......................................................................................................................................................................... 11
5.1 Evaluation Description.............................................................................................................................................................. 11
5.2 Data Description ......................................................................................................................................................................... 11
5.3 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 12
5.4 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
6. Long Term Precision ........................................................................................................................................................ 13
6.1 Evaluation Description.............................................................................................................................................................. 13
6.2 Data Description ......................................................................................................................................................................... 13
6.3 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 13
6.4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
7 Method Comparison of HumaCount 80TS Hematology Analyzer vs. Cell-Dyn 3700 ............................................... 16
7.1 Evaluation Description.............................................................................................................................................................. 16
7.2 Data Description ......................................................................................................................................................................... 18
7.3 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 18
7.4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................................................... 28
8 Overall Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................ 28
3. Repeatability
Low High
Low Clinical High Clinical
Parameter Units Instrument Reportable Normal Range Reportable
Decision Point Decision Point
Range Range
Samples Needed 2 samples 2 samples 4 samples 2 samples 2 samples
3 < 2.0 ≥3.2 and≤4.8 ≥ 4.0 and ≤ 11.3 ≥ 9.0 and ≤13.6 > 60
WBC 10 /µL
000004 2 2 5 3 2
6 < 2.0 ≥ 2.9 and ≤ 4.8 ≥ 3.8 and ≤ 6.5 ≥ 5.2 and ≤ 7.8 > 7.5
RBC 10 /µL
000004 3 7 7 2 3
≥ 8.6 and
< 5.0 ≥ 11.5 and ≤ 17.5 ≥ 14.9 and ≤ 20.1 > 18.5
HGB g/dL ≤ 14.4
000004 2 7 5 3 3
≥ 120 and
< 50 ≥150 and ≤ 450 ≥ 360 and ≤ 540 > 900
PLT 103/µL ≤ 180
000004 3 6 7 2 2
The required minimum quantity and parameter distribution of human blood samples were met.
The following table shows the repeatability results for 3 levels of control material on instrument 000004:
Repeatability Evaluation Instrument 000004 - Controls Samples
RDWc
Parameter WBC LYM% MID% GRA% RBC HGB MCV v PLT MPV Overall
Units 103/µl % % % 106/µl g/dl fl % 103/µl fl
SD Criteria 0.18 3.10 2.00 3.50 0.11 0.20 1.00 0.40 23.00 0.45
CV Criteria 2.7% 1.7% 2.0% 1.7% 2.5% 6.0% 8.7%
Mean 1.93 59.26 10.92 29.8 2.46 6.27 81.81 17.98 63.86 7.44
SD 0.05 1.73 1.25 1.48 0.03 0.09 0.51 0.25 3.51 0.55
Diacon3
2.91 11.42 1.44 7.40 Pass
B081/L 2.78% 4.97% 1.41% 0.63% 1.41% 5.50%
CV % % % %
P/F Status Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass
228.2
7 30.95 5.86 63.19 4.87 13.7 93.9 16.54 7.2
Mean 4
Diacon3 SD 0.12 0.81 0.36 0.64 0.08 0.18 0.3 0.14 7.87 0.25
Pass
B081/N 2.61 1.31 3.44
1.70% 6.19% 1.01% 1.60% 0.32% 0.87% 3.45%
CV % % %
P/F Status Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass
103.7 460.4
18.71 12.47 4.45 83.08 6.05 18.36 15.62 7.57
Mean 6 8
Diacon3 SD 0.22 0.31 0.19 0.36 0.07 0.09 0.44 0.15 9.73 0.22
Pass
B081/H 2.49 0.47 2.88
1.19% 4.18% 0.43% 1.13% 0.42% 0.99% 2.11%
CV % % %
P/F Status Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass
3.4 Conclusion
All repeatability runs had the required maximum number of replicates (21) as per the protocol. The
required number and parameter distribution of human blood samples were run. Three levels of controls
were run as required. All repeatability runs passed either their CV or SD criteria for all parameters for both
instruments. Therefore, the repeatability performance of the HumaCount 80TS Analyzer was considered
passing.
4. Linearity
Regression Analysis
2
Order Coef. Value Coef. SE t Critical t P Value SEreg r
st
1 b0 -9.517 0.344 -27.698 2.060 0.000 -- --
st
1 b1 9.649 0.061 158.024 2.060 0.000 0.8192 0.9990
nd
2 b0 -7.784 0.438 -17.782 2.064 0.000 -- --
nd
2 b1 8.704 0.201 43.302 2.064 0.000 -- --
nd
2 b2 0.095 0.020 4.822 2.064 0.000 0.5959 0.9995
rd
3 b0 -8.818 0.712 -12.393 2.069 0.000 -- --
rd
3 b1 9.694 0.583 16.614 2.069 0.000 -- --
rd
3 b2 -0.140 0.132 -1.063 2.069 0.299 -- --
rd
3 b3 0.016 0.009 1.797 2.069 0.085 0.5700 0.9996
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Mean Values
Mean vs. 1st Order Prediction Mean vs. 3rd Order Prediction Identity
Mean vs. 1st Order Prediction Mean vs. 3rd Order Prediction Identity
100
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Mean Values
Mean vs. 1st Order Prediction Mean vs. 2nd Order Prediction Identity
Regression Analysis
Order Coef. Value Coef. SE t Critical t P Value Order Coef.
st
1 b0 -101.661 4.813 -21.121 2.040 0.000
st
1 b1 114.191 0.710 160.906 2.040 0.000 12.8919 0.9988
nd
2 b0 -99.933 8.300 -12.040 2.042 0.000 -- --
nd
2 b1 113.394 3.179 35.670 2.042 0.000 -- --
nd
2 b2 0.066 0.258 0.257 2.042 0.799 13.0905 0.9988
rd
3 b0 -93.803 13.536 -6.930 2.045 0.000 -- --
rd
3 b1 108.330 9.342 11.596 2.045 0.000 -- --
rd
3 b2 1.077 1.770 0.609 2.045 0.548 -- --
rd
3 b3 -0.056 0.097 -0.577 2.045 0.568 13.2385 0.9988
Mean vs. 1st Order Prediction Mean vs. 3rd Order Prediction Identity
4.4 Conclusions
Linearity evaluation of the instrument evaluated (SN: 000004) of all four parameters (WBC, RBC, HGB, and
2
PLT) were within the bounds of the repeatability, maximum nonlinearity, and r specification. Specifically,
all 8 individual linearity runs:
• Had no statistically significant higher-order coefficients or if they did, all observed non-linearities
were lower than the maximum non-linearity criteria appropriate for the parameter,
2
• Had coefficients of correlation (r ) that were higher than the minimum coefficient of correlation
criteria.
All linearity runs met their respective specifications, therefore the overall linearity evaluation was
considered passing.
5 Carryover
5.3 Results
WBC Carryover
Carryover Test Overall Pass/Fail Pass
Parameter WBC Individual Test Carryover P/F
Instrument 1 000004 000004 0.04% Pass
Instrument 2 000005 000005 0.10% Pass
Instrument 3 00001T 00001T 0.03% Pass
Criteria 1.00%
High Sample ID WBC H
Low Sample ID WBC L
RBC Carryover
Carryover Test Overall Pass/Fail Pass
Parameter RBC Individual Test Carryover P/F
Instrument 1 000004 000004 0.03% Pass
Instrument 2 000005 000005 0.05% Pass
Instrument 3 00001T 00001T -0.03% Pass
Criteria 1.00%
High Sample ID RBC_H
Low Sample ID RBC_L
HGB Carryover
Carryover Test Overall Pass/Fail Pass
Parameter HGB Individual Test Carryover P/F
Instrument 1 000004 000004 0.20% Pass
Instrument 2 000005 000005 0.40% Pass
Instrument 3 00001T 00001T 0.10% Pass
Criteria 1.00%
High Sample ID RBC_H
Low Sample ID RBC_L
PLT Carryover
Carryover Test Overall Pass/Fail Pass
Parameter PLT Individual Test Carryover P/F
Instrument 1 000004 000004 0.12% Pass
Instrument 2 000005 000005 -0.03% Pass
Instrument 3 00001T 00001T 0.53% Pass
Criteria 1.00%
High Sample ID PLT H
Low Sample ID PLT L
6.3 Results
The following acceptance criteria were used to derive the appropriate chi-square statistic for evaluation of
repeatability and within-device precision:
WBC GRA% LYM% MID% RBC HGB MCV RDWcv PLT MPV
Parameter
103/µl % % % 106/µl g/dl fl % 103/µl fl
Repeatability SD Criteria 0.18 3.50 3.10 2.00 0.11 2.0 1.00 0.40 23.00 0.45
Repeatability CV Criteria 2.70% 1.70% 2.00% 1.70% 2.50% 6.00% 8.70%
Reproducibility SD Criteria 0.20 3.50 3.10 2.00 0.13 2.2 1.20 0.45 27.00 0.50
10.00
Reproducibility CV Criteria
3.40% 2.00% 2.40% 2.00% 3.00% 7.00% %
The following tables show the calculated mean, standard deviation, coefficient of variation, SD and
variance goals, calculated user SD and variance, degrees of freedom, chi-square statistics, critical chi-
square, and the accepted/rejected status of the claim. There were twelve total tables: one table for
repeatability and one for within-device precision for the instrument and three levels of controls
Long term repeatability low control
6.4 Conclusions
The null hypothesis that the appropriate observed CV% and SD was less than the claim CV% or at least
less than claimed SD, was accepted for all parameters at all three control levels for the instrument for
booth repeatability and within-device precision. Therefore, the overall evaluation of long-term precision
was considered to pass.
The parameters selected for the evaluation of accuracy were the primary measured parameters (WBC,
RBC, HGB and PLT) and the derived parameters (LYM%, MID%, GRA%, MCV, RDWcv and MPV). Calculated
parameters that were simple functions of primary and derived parameters were not selected for
evaluation.
The reference instrument was a 5-part instrument, and the test analyzer was a 3-part instrument. There
was a mapping between the 5-part and the 3-part results: all granulocyte forms (neutrophil (NEU%),
eosinophil (EOS%) and basophil (BAS%)) sum up to correspond to the GRA% results of the HumaCount
80TS. The LYM% results on the CD3700 map to the LYM% results on the HumaCount 80TS, and the MON%
results of the CD3700 map to the MID% results of the HumaCount 80TS.
The combined data from all two sites were evaluated for outliers and analyzed using difference analysis.
Deming regression was used in the analysis of difference. The difference was calculated at two or three
clinical decision points as appropriate to the parameter, and at two range points representing typical
values of the parameter.
The term “bias” was used to describe the difference between a test method and a reference method. This
evaluation compares a test instrument against a comparator instrument and not against a reference
method, so the term “predictive bias” will be used rather than “bias.” The statistical approach to
calculation was identical in either case.
Although two replicates for both the test and comparator instruments were collected for each sample,
only the first sample was used in the calculation of predictive bias.
The absolute value of the calculated predictive bias at each decision point was compared to a maximum
goal calculated from the absolute and percent predictive bias criteria. If the predictive bias was less than
the corresponding goal, the predictive bias at the point was considered to meet its acceptance criteria. If
the predictive bias at all clinical decision points and range points for all parameters meet their acceptance
criteria, the overall evaluation was considered to pass successfully.
For each parameter, the following items were provided:
A table showing the criteria, clinical decision points and range points, the bias goal, the calculated
predictive bias with and without outliers removed and the pass/fail status with and without
outliers
A table showing the N number, slope and intercept, and confidence interval around the slope and
intercept with and without outliers
A scatter plot with Deming fit with the identity, allowable difference and 95% confidence interval
lines without outliers
Analyse-It for Microsoft Excel version 2.4 was used as a method evaluation tool to calculate predictive
bias using Deming regression for each parameter.
Data Site Samples Collected Outliers Removed Percentage of Outliers Total Samples Analyzed
Margaret 172 0 0.00% 172
Honved 144 3 2.08% 141
Total 316 3 0.95% 313
A total of 316 samples were collected form the two sites in this evaluation. From these, 3 between-
method outliers were removed using the method described in CLSI EP9-2A section 4.4. The total
percentage of outliers removed was 0.95%, well under the 2.5% (1 sample in 40) described by CLSI EP9-A2.
Only the first replicate of the test and comparator instruments were used, so no within-method replicate
outliers were removed. The remaining 313 samples were described in the following data descriptions.
7.3 Results
70
60
WBC - HC 80TS
50
Identity
20 95% CI bands
10
0
0 20 40 60 80
WBC - CD3700
90
80
70
GRA% - HC 80TS
60 Identity
50 Allowable bias (3 or
10%)
40
Deming fit
(2.11 + 0.99x)
30
95% CI bands
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
NEU%+EO%+BAS% - CD3700
90
80
70
LYM% - HC 80TS
60 Identity
50 Allowable bias (3 or
10%)
40
Deming fit
(0.11 + 0.96x)
30
95% CI bands
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
LYM% - CD3700
45
40
35
MID% - HC 80TS
30 Identity
25 Allowable bias (3 or
10%)
20
Deming fit
(-0.68 + 1.00x)
15
95% CI bands
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
MON% - CD3700
6
RBC - HC 80TS
Identity
5
Deming fit
(-0.10 + 1.02x)
3
95% CI bands
1
1 3 5 7
RBC - CD3700
Par. Criteria Clin. Dec. Point Bias goal Without Outliers Including Outliers
Pr. Bias 95% CI P/F Pr. Bias 95% CI P/F
HGB 3.0 or 6% 60 3.6 0.3 -0.4 to 0.9 Pass 0.3 -0.4 to 0.9 Pass
(g/l) 117 7.0 0.0 -0.3 to 0.3 Pass 0.0 -0.3 to 0.3 Pass
172 10.3 -0.2 -0.7 to 0.2 Pass -0.2 -0.7 to 0.2 Pass
Range Point Bias Goal Pr. Bias 95% CI P/F Pr. Bias 95% CI P/F
10 3 0.5 -0.6 to 1.6 Pass 0.5 -0.6 to 1.6 Pass
250 15 -0.5 -1.6 to 0.5 Pass -0.6 -1.6 to 0.5 Pass
200
180
HGB - HC 80TS HGB corr
160
140 Identity
40
20
20 70 120 170 220
HGB - CD3700
110
100
MCV - HC 80TS
Identity
90
Allowable bias (1 or
80 6%)
Deming fit
(-6.64 + 1.07x)
70
95% CI bands
60
50
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
MCV - CD3700
30
28
26
RDWcv - HC 80TS
24 Identity
22 Allowable bias (1 or
6%)
20
Deming fit
(0.32 + 0.97x)
18
95% CI bands
16
14
12
12 17 22 27 32
RDW - CD3700
800
700
600
PLT - HC 80TS
Identity
500
Allowable bias (15 or
400 8%)
Deming fit
300 (-9.65 + 1.07x)
95% CI bands
200
100
0
0 200 400 600 800
PLT - CD3700
16
14
MPV - HC 80TS
Identity
12
Allowable bias (1 or
10 10%)
Deming fit
(0.38 + 0.96x)
8
95% CI bands
4
4 9 14
MPV - CD3700
7.4 Conclusions
The method comparison of the HumaCount 80TS against the Abbott Cell-Dyn 3700 analyzer (predicate
instrument) met the following evaluation requirements:
Two sites were used
A sufficient number of samples were collected at each site
A sufficient number of samples were collected in each range required by EP9-A2 ranges
The absolute value of the calculated predictive bias of all clinical decision points and range points
were below the predictive bias goals for the points determined from the acceptance criteria for all
parameters
Therefore, the method comparison evaluation was considered to meet its acceptance criteria and all the
requirements of the data collection and its evaluation.
8 Overall Conclusions
The following conclusions can be drawn from the evaluation summaries contained in this report:
Evaluation protocols were written for each evaluation that conform to applicable standards
Data collection for each evaluation in this report was conducted according to their respective
protocol and conforming to applicable standards
Statistical data analysis of the data for each evaluation was conducted in accordance with
applicable standards
All evaluations summarized in this report met their acceptance criteria