Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Cell Transplant. 2014 May 6;24(7):1195–1204. doi: 10.3727/096368914X681612

Table 2.

Comparison of IEQ between manual count and digital image analysis.

Inter-Sample Variation (ISV) Inter-Technician Variation (Inter-TV)
Manual I DIA DIA-E Manual I DIA DIA-E
High 150
Mean ±SD 242 ± 65 242 ± 62 185 ± 47 242 ± 22 242 ± 20 185 ± 16
CV% ± SD 24 ± 4 26 ± 1 26 ± 1 9 ± 3 8 ± 3 8 ± 3

p value
Manual I vs. 0.86 <0.0001 0.86 <0.0001
DIA vs. <0.0001 <0.0001

High 100
Mean ±SD 168 ± 36 161 ± 42 124 ± 33 168 ± 16 161 ± 13 124 ± 10
CV% ± SD 21 ± 1 26 ± 2 26 ± 2 9 ± 3 8 ± 3 9 ± 3

p value
Manual I vs. 0.029 <0.0001 0.029 <0.0001
DIA vs. <0.0001 <0.0001

Low 100
Mean ±SD 83 ± 23 80 ± 20 62 ± 16 83 ± 7.2 80 ± 7.7 62 ± 6.3
CV% ± SD 28 ± 3 25 ± 1 26 ± 2 9 ± 4 10 ± 4 10 ± 2

p value
Manual I vs. 0.182 <0.0001 0.182 <0.0001
DIA vs. <0.0001 <0.0001

Note: Every islet sample group (H150, H100 and L100) contains 20 islet image samples respectively. Five technicians participated IEQ counting. Results came from 100 counted data per islet sample group. ISV and Inter-TV were not significantly different among Manual I, DIA and DIA-E. All p values were determined by paired t-test.