NakedSignal

Change explorer · Haematology and immunology

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

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 2): 1,885 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, 535 results changed category after the change, against about 238 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 2). 1,885 paired results.

Compare it with the other comparisons in the explorer

Comparison line

The new system reads 14.3% lower than the old system on average. The comparison line has a slope of 0.867 (95% interval 0.856 to 0.877) and an intercept of -1.2.

Public data
Comparison line, CD4 absolute count (cells/µL)Comparison line with slope 0.867 (95% interval 0.856 to 0.877) and intercept -1.2, 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: 535

Expected from repeat testing alone: about 238

Grade and warnings

  • Re-test band: full (at least the protocol minimum of pairs).
  • Band half-width around each limit: 5.51%.
  • Results re-tested on data the band was not fitted to, median: 15%.
  • Share of the excess crossings caught on unseen data, comparison line and band together: 66%; comparison line alone: 46%. 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 used1,885
Comparison line slope0.866667
Slope, 95% interval0.856122 to 0.877053
Comparison line intercept-1.2
Mean difference, new minus old, as % of old-14.284
Decision limits (cells/µL)100, 200, 350, 500
Crossed after the change535
Expected from repeat testing alone238.49
Band half-width (%)5.51
Re-tested, unseen data, median (%)15.01
Re-tested, unseen data, range (%)14.8 to 15.07
Excess caught, line and band (%)66.23
Excess caught, line alone (%)45.53

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