ICAP
Nomenclature and Classification Tree
Nomenclature and Classification Trees Negative AC-1 AC-3 AC-21 AC-22 AC-23 AC-29 AC-2 AC-30 AC-4 AC-31 AC-5 AC-6 AC-7 AC-8 AC-9 AC-10 AC-11 AC-12 AC-13 AC-14 AC-15 AC-16 AC-17 AC-19 AC-20 AC-18 AC-24 AC-26 AC-25 AC-27 AC-28 AC-XX Reference materials available at www.AutoAb.org

The original classification of patterns into the broad competent- and expert level categories was intended to segregate patterns that should be readily recognized (competent level) versus those that are more challenging and typically distinguished only by highly experienced observers or technologists (expert-level). The classification as competent-level pattern was based on at least two considerations. First, clinical relevance was a key factor to ensure that important clinical implications are appropriately recognized. Second, easily recognizable patterns should be included, even when their clinical relevance is not fully understood. It is acknowledged that the current classification of competent-level patterns (amber boxes) and expert-level patterns (olive green boxes) is provisional and contingent, evolving over time. Thus, the primary purpose of this separation was to guide laboratory personnel in prioritizing which patterns should be mastered first. In other words, individuals should first ensure they can accurately identify patterns in the amber category before attempting to master those in the olive green category. This approach is similar to learning a new language, where foundational vocabulary is acquired before progressing to more advanced terms.

One concern raised in recent years is that some laboratory personnel may become overly focused on how their interpretations reflect on their perceived level of expertise, potentially influencing how they report results. For example, an individual who has been reading HEp-2 IFA for several years may assume he/she functions at the expert and feels compelled to report using expert-level patterns, even when some images do not provide sufficient definition for a reliable classification at the expert level. In such situations, it is more appropriate to acknowledge limitations and report findings conservatively, i.e., using the competent-level patterns. For instance, when it is not possible to confidently distinguish among AC-4, AC-31, and AC-5, it is entirely appropriate to report the result as speckled (AC-4/AC-5/AC-31).

 
 
Online since 19 May 2015