Artificial Intelligence at the Point of Care: Comparative Performance of Two Digital Microscopy Analysers for Acute Leukaemia Detection

miLab™ showed better acute leukemia alerting than HemoScreen™ and performed well for routine blood counts in a multicenter ED sample study.

PoCT Symposium

March 26, 2026

Manon Alexandre, et al.

Artificial Intelligence at the Point of Care: Comparative Performance of Two Digital Microscopy Analysers for Acute Leukaemia Detection

Unauthorized downloading or distribution of this poster is strictly prohibited.

Abstract

This multicentre study compared AI-based POCT analysers miLab™ BCM and HemoScreen™ against Sysmex XN9000 for routine CBC and acute leukaemia (AL) detection in ED settings, with miLab showing superior blast flagging (100% sensitivity for circulating blasts).

Parameters	WBC	PLT	Neutrophil	Blast
Category	Pearson Correlation Coefficient			Flag Sensitivity	Flag Specificity
miLab™ BCM	>0.92	>0.92	>0.92	100%	92%
HemoScreen™	>0.92	>0.92	>0.92	20%	98%

Table 1: Pearson Correlation and Flag Performance of miLab™ BCM vs. HemoScreen™

Key Highlights

Multicenter study of 60 EDTA samples, including 22 hematologic malignancies and 7 acute cases.
Compared updated HemoScreen™ and miLab™ BCM against the Sysmex XN9000 reference analyzer.
Both devices correlated well for WBC, platelet, and neutrophil counts.
miLab™ "Blast" flag: 71% sensitivity and 92% specificity; HemoScreen™ "ABN" flag: 14% sensitivity and 98% specificity.
When cases without circulating blasts were excluded, miLab™ reached 100% sensitivity, while HemoScreen™ remained at 20%.
miLab™ also allowed direct or remote access to digital images for expert review.

Download Brochure Request Demo