New York State Department of Health, Wadsworth Center, P.O. Box 509, Albany, NY 12201, USA.
Microsc Microanal. 2013 Dec;19(6):1653-68. doi: 10.1017/S1431927613013470. Epub 2013 Oct 8.
As part of an ongoing effort to increase image reproducibility and fidelity in addition to improving cross-instrument consistency, we have proposed using four separate instrument quality tests to augment the ones we have previously reported. These four tests assessed the following areas: (1) objective lens quality, (2) resolution, (3) accuracy of the wavelength information from spectral detectors, and (4) the accuracy and quality of spectral separation algorithms. Data were received from 55 laboratories located in 18 countries. The largest source of errors across all tests was user error which could be subdivided between failure to follow provided protocols and improper use of the microscope. This truly emphasizes the importance of proper rigorous training and diligence in performing confocal microscopy experiments and equipment evaluations. It should be noted that there was no discernible difference in quality between confocal microscope manufactures. These tests, as well as others previously reported, will help assess the quality of confocal microscopy equipment and will provide a means to track equipment performance over time. From 62 to 97% of the data sets sent in passed the various tests demonstrating the usefulness and appropriateness of these tests as part of a larger performance testing regiment.
作为提高图像再现性和保真度以及提高跨仪器一致性的努力的一部分,我们提出使用四个单独的仪器质量测试来补充我们之前报告的测试。这四个测试评估了以下方面:(1)物镜质量,(2)分辨率,(3)光谱探测器的波长信息的准确性,以及(4)光谱分离算法的准确性和质量。数据来自 18 个国家的 55 个实验室。所有测试中最大的误差源是用户错误,可以细分为未遵循提供的协议和显微镜使用不当。这确实强调了在进行共聚焦显微镜实验和设备评估时进行适当严格培训和勤奋的重要性。值得注意的是,不同共聚焦显微镜制造商之间的质量没有明显差异。这些测试以及之前报告的其他测试将有助于评估共聚焦显微镜设备的质量,并提供一种随着时间的推移跟踪设备性能的方法。发送的数据集的 62%到 97%通过了各种测试,证明了这些测试作为更大的性能测试组的一部分的有用性和适当性。