• Clinical Summaries
  • Workflow
  • September 9, 2026

Blood Smear Review Time Study: 86% Less Hands-On Time with Autonomous Analysis

Download the study

An independent time-and-motion comparison of TriCore Reference Laboratory's current peripheral blood smear workflow — a Sysmex DI-60 digital morphology platform combined with manual microscopy — against Scopio's Complete Blood Morphology (CBM®) Analyzer, measuring operational performance, efficiency, and workflow impact across 225 samples.

Key findings

85.8%

of samples autonomously analyzed — 193 of 225 peripheral blood smears reported without morphology review¹

85.8%

reduction in hands-on review time — from 9 hours 19 minutes to 1 hour 19 minutes across 225 slides

2 min 32 sec

average morphologist review time for flagged cases, in line with current bench times²

Only 32 of 225 samples (14.22%) were flagged for review, representing the complex cases.

Why this study matters

Routine morphology is the last manual step in an otherwise automated hematology lab. Every smear that reaches a bench consumes trained technologist time, and labs are absorbing that cost while facing staffing shortages and reimbursement pressure.

This study asked a specific operational question: what happens to a real lab's workload when routine review is removed entirely, rather than accelerated?

"With laboratories nationwide facing major reductions in reimbursement, we must find ways to operate more efficiently without compromising patient care. CBM® is a timely answer to that exact challenge."

— Eric Carbonneau, Chief Operating Officer, TriCore Reference Laboratory

How the CBM® Analyzer works

Positioned downstream of the CBC analyzer, the CBM® Analyzer is the first fully autonomous analyzer for routine blood morphology reporting. It combines Scopio's proprietary Full-Field™ imaging and AI to quantify over 1,000 WBCs, 10,000 RBCs, and platelets from 50 fields of view per sample — eliminating the need for routine morphology review.

A configurable flagging mechanism routes samples that require trained-staff review — blasts, schistocytes, plasma cells — to a morphologist, using the same Full-Field™ capabilities.

Read the full CBM® Analyzer overview →

Methodology

  • Site: TriCore Reference Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM — an independent, non-profit clinical laboratory serving New Mexico's three largest hospital systems, processing approximately 1,490 CBCs and 104 peripheral blood smears daily
  • Sample: 225 peripheral blood smears, compared head-to-head
  • Current-state workflow: a Sysmex DI-60 digital morphology platform combined with manual microscopy²
  • Independent analysis: conducted by Nexus, a third-party laboratory consulting firm
  • Operators: four medical technologists with no prior Scopio experience, who reached comparable proficiency after a few hours of pre-study training
  • Workflow scenarios: three, varying in batch size and loading pattern
  • Comparison note: flagged-sample review on CBM® used a 200-WBC differential versus TriCore's 100-WBC current-state differential

Consistency across scenarios

Three scenarios were tested to evaluate performance under varying conditions: a large overnight batch, a medium batch, and a simulated daily workflow with slides arriving over time.

Across all three, the CBM® Analyzer flagged the same samples for technologist review and delivered consistent throughput. Performance was independent of batch size, loading pattern, or operator.

Clinical accuracy

High quantitative agreement with reference differential counts validates the autonomous reporting performance of CBM®, with high overall concordance across all cell types and reliable detection of critical findings — notably blasts (r = 0.92) and plasma cells (r = 0.86). The analyzer demonstrated consistent performance for myeloid precursor cells and lymphocytic subtypes, supporting safe autonomous analysis for routine cases while accurately identifying samples needing expert review.

Frequently asked questions

A time-and-motion comparison of TriCore Reference Laboratory's existing peripheral blood smear workflow — a Sysmex DI-60 digital morphology platform combined with manual microscopy — against Scopio's CBM® Analyzer across 225 samples, measuring hands-on time, autonomous reporting rate, throughput, and differential concordance. Independent analysis was conducted by Nexus.

193 of 225 — 85.8%. The remaining 32 samples (14.22%) were flagged for morphologist review.¹

Total hands-on time across 225 slides fell from 9 hours 19 minutes to 1 hour 19 minutes — an 85.8% reduction.

No. Flagged-case review averaged 2 minutes 32 seconds, on par with the current bench — 2:08 on the DI-60 and 2:31 on manual microscopy. Note that CBM® flagged review used a 200-WBC differential versus 100-WBC in the current state, so the comparable time covers twice the cell count.²

Blasts showed r = 0.92 and plasma cells r = 0.86 against reference differential counts, with high overall concordance across all cell types.

Four medical technologists with no prior Scopio experience reached comparable proficiency after a few hours of pre-study training.

No. CBM® is still in development and not yet available for in vitro diagnostic use. Pending FDA clearance in the US. Talk to our team about early access and bringing CBM® to your lab.

Get the study

¹ All figures from a workflow comparison study at TriCore Reference Laboratory, conducted by Nexus. Data collected January and May 2026.

² Current-state review averaged 2:08 (DI-60) and 2:31 (manual microscopy); flagged-sample review on Scopio (2:32) is on par with the manual bench. Current-state counts are based on a 100-WBC differential; Scopio flagged-sample counts are based on a 200-WBC differential.

Scopio's Complete Blood Morphology Analyzer (CBM®) is still in development, not yet available for in vitro diagnostic use. Final outputs may vary based on sample variability and final product design.