NakedSignal

Change explorer · Haematology and immunology

CD4 count on a new flow cytometry platform vs its predicate (data set one)

Public dataA public method-comparison deposit, not a laboratory's data. Systems are described generically; the source names them.

Flow cytometry platform A (predicate) replaced by flow cytometry platform B (new) (data set 1): 205 paired results from a published study by Coetzee and Glencross (2017), re-analysed by NakedSignal as if the study were one laboratory. At 100, 200, 350, 500 cells/µL, 39 results changed category after the change, against about 27 expected from repeat testing alone.

run 25 September 2026 · config 6eb23df45893 · run file sha256 5586cd892ef1

Haematology and immunology

CD4 absolute count, cells/µL

Flow cytometry platform A (predicate) replaced by Flow cytometry platform B (new) (data set 1). 205 paired results.

Compare it with the other comparisons in the explorer

Comparison line

The new system reads 14.6% lower than the old system on average. The comparison line has a slope of 0.914 (95% interval 0.896 to 0.933) and an intercept of -5.183.

Public data
Comparison line, CD4 absolute count (cells/µL)Comparison line with slope 0.914 (95% interval 0.896 to 0.933) and intercept -5.183, drawn against the line of no change. Decision limits drawn at 100, 200, 350, 500 cells/µL. Where the comparison line sits above the line of no change, the new system reads higher; below, lower.200400600200400600100200350500No changeComparison lineOld system, cells/µLNew system, cells/µL

Fig. 1. The comparison line against the line of no change, over the range of the decision limits (100, 200, 350, 500 cells/µL). Dots mark where each line meets each limit; the gap between them is the bias at that limit.

run 25 September 2026 · config 6eb23df45893 · run file sha256 5586cd892ef1

Crossing each limit

Results that moved across a decision limit when the new system replaced the old, against the number repeat testing on one unchanged system would move. The program reports the count across all limits together.

All decision limits together (100, 200, 350, 500 cells/µL)

Crossed after the change: 39

Expected from repeat testing alone: about 27

Grade and warnings

  • Re-test band: full (at least the protocol minimum of pairs).
  • Band half-width around each limit: 4.15%.
  • Results re-tested on data the band was not fitted to, median: 14%.
  • Share of the excess crossings caught on unseen data, comparison line and band together: 149%; comparison line alone: 109%. The excess is the crossings above what repeat testing alone would cause, so the share can exceed 100% or fall below zero.
  • Repeat-test imprecision: assumed, not measured at this site.

Source

Coetzee LM, Glencross DK (2017). PLoS One. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0187456 (opens in a new tab); PMC5669480 (opens in a new tab) (title on the source page; it names the instruments). Licence: CC BY 4.0 (opens in a new tab). Changes: Paired results re-analysed by NakedSignal's program; instruments described generically; only derived results are shown. The deposit names the systems.

Show the numbers
All values for CD4 absolute count, Flow cytometry platform A (predicate) to Flow cytometry platform B (new)
FieldValue
Paired results used205
Comparison line slope0.913978
Slope, 95% interval0.896227 to 0.933052
Comparison line intercept-5.182796
Mean difference, new minus old, as % of old-14.571
Decision limits (cells/µL)100, 200, 350, 500
Crossed after the change39
Expected from repeat testing alone27.05
Band half-width (%)4.15
Re-tested, unseen data, median (%)14.15
Re-tested, unseen data, range (%)13.17 to 15.61
Excess caught, line and band (%)148.88
Excess caught, line alone (%)108.74

Related

Other comparisons from the same study:

Guide: Crossings by chance

Every study behind the explorer, with its licence: public data. How the counts are made: method.

Changing a system like this one?

Request a first site report