Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been declared a global pandemic and is a major public health concern worldwide. In this study, we aimed to determine the role of environmental factors, such as climate and air pollutants, in the transmission of COVID-19 in the Republic of Korea. We collected epidemiological and environmental data from two regions of the Republic of Korea, namely Seoul metropolitan region (SMR) and Daegu-Gyeongbuk region (DGR) from February 2020 to July 2020. The data was then analyzed to identify correlations between each environmental factor with confirmed daily COVID-19 cases. Among the various environmental parameters, the duration of sunshine and ozone level were found to positively correlate with COVID-19 cases in both regions. However, the association of temperature variables with COVID-19 transmission revealed contradictory results when comparing the data from SMR and DGR. Moreover, statistical bias may have arisen due to an extensive epidemiological investigation and altered socio-behaviors that occurred in response to a COVID-19 outbreak. Nevertheless, our results suggest that various environmental factors may play a role in COVID-19 transmission.
Background: The Sysmex DI-60 digital morphology analyzer is a fully automated, cell-locating image analysis system. This study aimed to evaluate the analytical performance of DI-60. Methods: A total of 822 peripheral blood smears were used. The diagnostic performance of DI-60 in terms of red blood cell (RBC) morphology characterization, white blood cell (WBC) differentials, and the total assay time including hands-on time was evaluated. Results: In comparison with manual slide review, DI-60 demonstrated acceptable accuracy in recognizing polychromasia, target cells, and ovalocytes. However, for schistocytes, DI-60 demonstrated low specificity (10.4%) despite the high sensitivity (97.2%). In the precision analysis of RBC morphology characterization, borderline samples harboring specific RBCs showed inconsistencies in the positive results among 20 replicates. Particularly, 6 of 10 samples showed inconsistencies in the precision for schistocytes. For WBC differentials, the overall agreement between pre-classification results and user-verified results was 89.4%. Except for basophils, normal WBCs showed a good correlation between DI-60 (after user verification) and manual counts. The sensitivities in detecting immature granulocytes, blasts, atypical lymphocytes, and normoblasts were 85.9%, 92.0%, 37.5%, and 77.6%, respectively. Although the total assay time of DI-60 was longer than that of manual review, the hands-on time was considerably shorter with a difference of 144.1 s/slide for abnormal samples. Conclusion: DI-60 demonstrated acceptable performance for normal samples. However, for abnormal WBC differentials and RBC morphology characterization, it should be utilized carefully. DI-60 may contribute to an improvement in laboratory efficiency with increased feasibility.