Korthof G, Carothers A D
Department of Human Genetics, University of Leiden, Netherlands.
Clin Genet. 1991 Dec;40(6):441-51. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.1991.tb03116.x.
Four commercially-available semi-automatic cytogenetic systems (Cytoscan, Ibas, Magiscan and Miamed) have been evaluated for both metaphase-finding and karyotyping performances, using a common set of test slides and uniform criteria. Comparisons have been made in respect of timings, number and nature of operator interactions, and false positive and negative rates. Amongst the general conclusions are the importance, for metaphase-finding performance, of a facility for ranking candidate metaphases according to their 'analysability', the need for some systems to reduce the time taken to relocate candidate metaphases, and the ability of all systems tested to detect analysable metaphases that were initially overlooked by a skilled cytogeneticist. In spite of automation, karyotyping remains a highly interactive process, strongly dependent on the skill and judgment of the operator, and therefore difficult to evaluate fully objectively.
使用一组通用的测试玻片和统一的标准,对四种市售的半自动细胞遗传学系统(Cytoscan、Ibas、Magiscan和Miamed)的中期寻找和核型分析性能进行了评估。在时间安排、操作员交互的数量和性质以及假阳性和假阴性率方面进行了比较。总体结论包括,对于中期寻找性能而言,根据“可分析性”对候选中期进行排序的功能很重要;一些系统需要减少重新定位候选中期所需的时间;以及所有测试系统都有能力检测出熟练的细胞遗传学家最初忽略的可分析中期。尽管实现了自动化,但核型分析仍然是一个高度交互的过程,强烈依赖于操作员的技能和判断力,因此难以完全客观地评估。