title: Implementation and evaluation of a new automated interactive image analysis system.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare automated interactive screening using the ThinPrep Imaging System with independent manual primary screening of 12,000 routine ThinPrep slides.
  
  
  METHODS
  With the first 6,000 cases, the Review Scopes (RS) screening results from the 22 fields of view (FOV) only were compared to independent manual primary screening. In the next 6,000 cases, any abnormality detected in the 22 FOV resulted in full manual screening on the cytotechnologist's own microscope. Sensitivity and specificity together with their 95% CIs were calculatedfor each method.
  
  
  RESULTS
  In the first set of 6, 000 cases, diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the imager were 85.19% and 96.67%, respectively. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of manual primary screening were 89.38% and 98.42%. This highersensitivity and specificity of manual primary screening were found to be statistically significant. The second set of 6,000 cases demonstrated no significant statistical difference in sensitivity or specificity between the sets of data.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The results from our study show that the sensitivity and specificity of the imager technology are equivalent to those of manual primary screening. The system is ideally suited to the rapid screening of negative cases, allowing increased laboratory productivity and greater throughput of cases on a daily basis.
authors.affiliation: Department of Cytopathology, Coombe Women's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. nbolger@coombe.ie
authors.forename: Noel
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Bolger
authors.forename: Cynthia
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Heffron
authors.forename: Irene
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Regan
authors.forename: Mary
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Sweeney
authors.forename: Sinead
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Kinsella
authors.forename: Mary
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: McKeown
authors.forename: Grace
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Creighton
authors.forename: Joan
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Russell
authors.forename: John
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: O'Leary
mesh_terms: D002277:Carcinoma / Q000175:diagnosis*; D002584:Cervix Uteri / Q000473:pathology*; D003951:Diagnostic Errors / Q000517:prevention & control; D005188:False Negative Reactions; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D019044:Image Cytometry / Q000379:methods* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data / Q000639:trends; D008403:Mass Screening / Q000379:methods / Q000706:statistics & numerical data / Q000639:trends; D015588:Observer Variation; D010363:Pattern Recognition, Automated / Q000379:methods* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data / Q000639:trends; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D002583:Uterine Cervical Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis*; D014626:Vaginal Smears / Q000379:methods* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data / Q000639:trends