“…This reported information makes up the WBC, absolute cell numbers, rather than relative percentages, which can be misleading, should be used in interpreting the WBC response, and the individually specified WBC types should be determined, with the greatest number of cells counted and evaluated for a more reliable result, as the observation of direct stretches and smears of leukocyte concentrates from systemic blood has been useful to clarify the diagnosis and contribute to appropriate treatment ( Bastos et al, 2016 ; Lv et al, 2015 ; Papasouliotis & Murphy, 2021 ). On the other hand, the use of automation through hematology counters has not added any additional benefit, when used in a unique way ( Troìa et al, 2017 ), or provide quantitative information without complementary on the morphological characteristics of PMNs, monocytes and lymphocytes; thus not allowing, with the morphological evaluation, a more detailed examination and showing the need to detect which morphological variations, and therefore functional status , in response to stimuli, as in infections ( Oliveira-Costa et al, 2022 ; Paolino & Williams, 2021 ; Zhang et al, 2021 ), therefore, the special attention of neutrophils is necessary, as it is confirmed that the study of neutrophils presents an accuracy in the diagnosis of infection and sepsis greater than 98%, as observed at the present study, which brings the observation of neutrophilic changes in 100% of patients, as another important diagnostic parameter, since the neutrophil phenotype can potentially diagnose, monitor infection and sepsis ( Anderson & Singh, 2018 ; Ellett et al, 2018 ; Kim et al, 2009 ; Oliveira-Costa et al, 2022 ; Zhang et al, 2021 ) confirming the relationship between the presence of toxic alterations and microbiological infections confirmed by the isolation results ( Paolino & Williams, 2021 ; Salgado et al, 2007 ) as observed in the 10 case reports in the present study.…”