Evaluation of Parasight All-in-One system for the automated enumeration of helminth ova in canine and feline feces

Abstract

Abstract Background  Digital imaging combined with deep-learning-based computational image analysis is a growing area in medical diagnostics, including parasitology, where a number of automated analytical devices have been developed and are available for use in clinical practice. Methods The performance of Parasight All-in-One (AIO), a second-generation device, was evaluated by comparing it to a well-accepted research method (mini-FLOTAC) and to another commercially available test (Imagyst). Fifty-nine canine and feline infected fecal specimens were quantitatively analyzed by all three methods. Since some samples were positive for more than one parasite, the dataset consisted of 48 specimens positive for Ancylostoma spp., 13 for Toxocara spp. and 23 for Trichuris spp. Results The magnitude of Parasight AIO counts correlated well with those of mini-FLOTAC but not with those of Imagyst. Parasight AIO counted approximately 3.5-fold more ova of Ancylostoma spp. and Trichuris spp. and 4.6-fold more ova of Toxocara spp. than the mini-FLOTAC, and counted 27.9-, 17.1- and 10.2-fold more of these same ova than Imagyst, respectively. These differences translated into differences between the test sensitivities at low egg count levels (< 50 eggs/g), with Parasight AIO > mini-FLOTAC > Imagyst. At higher egg counts Parasight AIO and mini-FLOTAC performed with comparable precision (which was significantly higher that than Imagyst), whereas at lower counts (> 30 eggs/g) Parasight was more precise than both mini-FLOTAC and Imagyst, while the latter two methods did not significantly differ from each other. Conclusions In general, Parasight AIO analyses were both more precise and sensitive than mini-FLOTAC and Imagyst and quantitatively correlated well with mini-FLOTAC. While Parasight AIO produced lower raw counts in eggs-per-gram than mini-FLOTAC, these could be corrected using the data generated from these correlations. Graphical Abstract