Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2023 Jan-Dec;22:15330338231214250. doi: 10.1177/15330338231214250.
Determine the interchangeability of various methods utilized for counting colonies in clonogenic assays.
Clonogenic assays of 2 head and neck cancer cell lines were counted through 4 different counting modalities: Manual counting pen, via microscope, 1 publicly available automated algorithm, and a semiautomated algorithm presented by the authors. Each method counted individual wells (N = 24). Pen and microscopic counts were performed by 2 observers. Parameters included both low-growth (<150 colonies/well) and high-growth (>150 colonies/well) cell lines. Correlational and Bland-Altman analyses were performed using SPSS software.
Interobserver manual pen count correlation value in both growth conditions was 0.902; controlling for only low-growth conditions decreased to 0.660. Correlation of microscopic versus pen counts values for observers 1 and 2 were 0.955 and 0.775, respectively. Comparing techniques, Bland-Altman revealed potential bias with respect to the magnitude of measurement (< .001) for both observers. Correlation of microscopic counts for both interobserver (= 0.902) and intraobserver (= 0.916) were analyzed. Bland-Altman revealed no bias (= .489). Automated versus microscopic counts revealed no bias between methodologies (= .787) and a lower correlation coefficient (= 0.384). Semiautomated versus microscopic counts revealed no bias with respect to magnitude of measurement for either observer (= .327, .229); Pearson correlation was 0.985 (= 0.970) and 0.965 (= 0.931) for observer 1 and 2. Semiautomated versus manual pen colony counts revealed a significant bias with respect to magnitude of measurement (< .001).
Counting with a manual pen demonstrated significant bias when compared to microscopic and semiautomated colony counts; 2 methods were deemed to be interchangeable. Thus, training algorithms based on manual counts may introduce this bias as well. Algorithms trained to select colonies based on size (pixels) and shape (circularity) should be prioritized. Solely relying on Bland-Altman or correlational analyses when determining method interchangeability should be avoided; they rather should be used in conjunction.
确定用于克隆形成分析中菌落计数的各种方法的可互换性。
通过 4 种不同的计数方式对 2 种头颈部癌细胞系的克隆形成分析进行计数:手动计数笔、显微镜、1 种公开的自动化算法和作者提出的半自动算法。每种方法都单独计数每个孔(N=24)。笔和显微镜计数由 2 名观察者进行。参数包括低生长(<150 个菌落/孔)和高生长(>150 个菌落/孔)细胞系。使用 SPSS 软件进行相关性和 Bland-Altman 分析。
在两种生长条件下,两位观察者手动笔计数的相关性值为 0.902;仅控制低生长条件下,相关性值降低至 0.660。观察者 1 和 2 的显微镜与笔计数的相关性值分别为 0.955 和 0.775。比较不同技术,Bland-Altman 显示出在测量幅度上存在潜在偏差(<0.001),对于两位观察者均如此。对两位观察者的显微镜计数进行相关性分析(=0.902)和同一观察者内的分析(=0.916)。Bland-Altman 显示没有偏差(=0.489)。自动化与显微镜计数之间的方法无偏差(=0.787),相关系数较低(=0.384)。对于两位观察者,半自动与显微镜计数在测量幅度上没有偏差(=0.327,=0.229);观察者 1 和 2 的 Pearson 相关系数分别为 0.985(=0.970)和 0.965(=0.931)。半自动与手动笔菌落计数在测量幅度上存在显著偏差(<0.001)。
与显微镜和半自动菌落计数相比,手动笔计数存在显著偏差;两种方法被认为是可互换的。因此,基于手动计数训练的算法也可能引入这种偏差。应优先考虑基于大小(像素)和形状(圆形度)选择菌落的算法。在确定方法可互换性时,仅依赖 Bland-Altman 或相关性分析是不够的,应该结合使用。