Multicenter evaluation of the Vetscan Imagyst system using Ocus 40 and EasyScan One scanners to detect gastrointestinal parasites in feces of dogs and cats

The Vetscan Imagyst system (Zoetis) is a novel, artificial intelligence-driven detection tool that can assist veterinarians in the identification of enteric parasites in dogs and cats. This system consists of a sample preparation device, an automated digital microscope scanner, and a deep-learning algorithm. The EasyScan One scanner (Motic) has had good diagnostic performance compared with manual examinations by experts; however, there are drawbacks when used in veterinary practices in which space for equipment is often limited. To improve the usability of this system, we evaluated an additional scanner, the Ocus 40 (Grundium). Our objectives were to 1) qualitatively evaluate the performance of the Vetscan Imagyst system with the Ocus 40 scanner for identifying Ancylostoma, Toxocara, and Trichuris eggs, Cystoisospora oocysts, and Giardia cysts in canine and feline fecal samples, and 2) expand the assessment of the performance of the Vetscan Imagyst system paired with either the Ocus 40 or EasyScan One scanner to include a larger dataset of 2,191 fecal samples obtained from 4 geographic regions of the United States. When tested with 852 canine and feline fecal samples collected from different geographic regions, the performance of the Vetscan Imagyst system combined with the Ocus 40 scanner was correlated closely with manual evaluations by experts. Sensitivities were 80.0‒97.0% and specificities were 93.7‒100.0% across the targeted parasites. When tested with 1,339 fecal samples, the Vetscan Imagyst system paired with the EasyScan One scanner successfully identified the targeted parasite stages; sensitivities were 73.6‒96.4% and specificities were 79.7‒100.0%.

Further evaluation and validation of the VETSCAN IMAGYST: in-clinic feline and canine fecal parasite detection system integrated with a deep learning algorithm

Background

Fecal examinations in pet cats and dogs are key components of routine veterinary practice; however, their accuracy is influenced by diagnostic methodologies and the experience level of personnel performing the tests. The VETSCAN IMAGYST system was developed to provide simpler and easier fecal examinations which are less influenced by examiners’ skills. This system consists of three components: a sample preparation device, an automated microscope scanner, and analysis software. The objectives of this study were to qualitatively evaluate the performance of the VETSCAN IMAGYST system on feline parasites (Ancylostoma and Toxocara cati) and protozoan parasites (Cystoisospora and Giardia) and to assess and compare the performance of the VETSCAN IMAGYST centrifugal flotation method to reference centrifugal and passive flotation methods.

Methods

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of the scanning and algorithmic components of the VETSCAN IMAGYST system, fecal slides were prepared by the VETSCAN IMAGYST centrifugal flotation technique with pre-screened fecal samples collected from dogs and cats and examined by both an algorithm and parasitologists. To assess the performance of the VETSCAN IMAGYST centrifugal flotation technique, diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were calculated and compared to those of conventional flotation techniques.

Results

The performance of the VETSCAN IMAGYST algorithm closely correlated with evaluations by parasitologists, with sensitivity of 75.8–100% and specificity of 93.1-100% across the targeted parasites. For samples with 50 eggs or less per slide, Lin’s concordance correlation coefficients ranged from 0.70 to 0.95 across the targeted parasites. The results of the VETSCAN IMAGYST centrifugal flotation method correlated well with those of the conventional centrifugal flotation method across the targeted parasites: sensitivity of 65.7–100% and specificity of 97.6–100%. Similar results were observed for the conventional passive flotation method compared to the conventional centrifugal flotation method: sensitivity of 56.4–91.7% and specificity of 99.4–100%.

Conclusions

The VETSCAN IMAGYST scanning and algorithmic systems with the VETSCAN IMAGYST fecal preparation technique demonstrated a similar qualitative performance to the parasitologists’ examinations with conventional fecal flotation techniques. Given the deep learning nature of the VETSCAN IMAGYST system, its performance is expected to improve over time, enabling it to be utilized in veterinary clinics to perform fecal examinations accurately and efficiently.

Evaluation of the VETSCAN IMAGYST: an in-clinic canine and feline fecal parasite detection system integrated with a deep learning algorithm

Background

Fecal examination is an important component of routine companion animal wellness exams. Sensitivity and specificity of fecal examinations, however, are influenced by sample preparation methodologies and the level of training and experience of personnel who read fecal slides. The VETSCAN IMAGYST system consists of three components: a sample preparation device, a commercially available scanner, and an analysis software. The VETSCAN IMAGYST automated scanner and cloud-based, deep learning algorithm, locates, classifies, and identifies parasite eggs found on fecal microscopic slides. The main study objectives were (i) to qualitatively evaluate the capabilities of the VETSCAN IMAGYST screening system and (ii) to assess and compare the performance of the VETSCAN IMAGYST fecal preparation methods to conventional fecal flotation techniques.

Methods

To assess the capabilities of VETSCAN IMAGYST screening components, fecal slides were prepared by the VETSCAN IMAGYST centrifugal and passive flotation techniques with 100 pre-screened fecal samples collected from dogs and cats and examined by both the algorithm and parasitologists. To determine the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the VETSCAN IMAGYST sample preparation techniques, fecal flotation slides were prepared by four different techniques (VETSCAN IMAGYST centrifugal and passive flotations, conventional centrifugal flotation, and passive flotation using OVASSAY® Plus) and examined by parasitologists. Additionally, required sample preparation and scanning times were estimated on a subset of samples to evaluate VETSCAN IMAGYST ease-of-use.

Results

The algorithm performance of the VETSCAN IMAGYST closely matched that of the parasitologists, with Pearsonʼs correlation coefficient (r) ranging from 0.83–0.99 across four taxa of parasites, Ancylostoma, Toxocara, Trichuris and Taeniidae. Both VETSCAN IMAGYST centrifugal and passive flotation methods correlated well with conventional preparation methods on all targeted parasites (diagnostic sensitivity of 75.8–100%, specificity of 91.8–100%, qualitative agreement between methods of 93.8–94.5%). Sample preparation, slide scan and image analysis were completed within 10–14 min by VETSCAN IMAGYST centrifugal and passive flotations, respectively.

Conclusions

The VETSCAN IMAGYST scanning system with the VETSCAN IMAGYST sample preparation methods demonstrated a qualitative match in comparison to the results of parasitologists’ examinations with conventional fecal flotation techniques. The VETSCAN IMAGYST is an easy-to-use, next generation qualitative and possibly quantitative diagnostic platform that brings expert clinical results into the hands of veterinary clinics.

Diagnostic performances of two rapid tests for detection of feline leukemia virus antigen in sera of experimentally feline leukemia virus-infected cats

Objectives

The objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic sensitivities and specificities of WITNESS FeLV-FIV (Zoetis) and SNAP FIV/FeLV Combo Test (IDEXX) for the detection of FeLV p27 antigen in the sera of experimentally feline leukemia virus (FeLV)-infected cats.

Methods

Diagnostic sensitivities of WITNESS and SNAP were determined through testing of 47 serum samples collected from cats day 56 post-experimental infection with a virulent FeLV Rickard strain. Successful experimental infection was confirmed based on observation of FeLV antigen and proviral DNA in anti-coagulated (EDTA) whole-blood samples by immunofluorescent antibody (IFA) test and PCR, respectively. Diagnostic specificities of both tests were determined through testing of sera of 92 laboratory-housed, non-FeLV-exposed specific pathogen-free (SPF) cats.

Results

Forty-one of 47 blood samples were IFA positive, whereas all 47 samples were PCR positive. All 92 non-FeLV-infected SPF cats were IFA and PCR negative. In comparison to IFA as the reference method, both WITNESS and SNAP tests yielded equivalent sensitivities and specificities of 100% and 97.8%, respectively. In comparison to PCR as the reference method, both WITNESS and SNAP tests likewise performed equivalently, with sensitivities and specificities of 91.5% and 100%, respectively.

Conclusions and relevance

Sensitivity and specificity of WITNESS FeLV-FIV for identifying FeLV p27 antigen in the sera of these experimentally FeLV-infected and non-FeLV-exposed SPF cats equaled those of the SNAP FIV/FeLV Combo Test. However, all positive results, regardless of the point-of-care test used, should be confirmed before making clinical decisions such as segregation from other cats or euthanasia.