基于人工智能的计数系统(OvaCyte™)和麦克马斯特计数法用于羊粪便中圆形卵的定量比较评价

IF 2.2 2区 农林科学 Q2 PARASITOLOGY
Giulio Grandi , Jaroslav Vadlejch , Johan Höglund
{"title":"基于人工智能的计数系统(OvaCyte™)和麦克马斯特计数法用于羊粪便中圆形卵的定量比较评价","authors":"Giulio Grandi ,&nbsp;Jaroslav Vadlejch ,&nbsp;Johan Höglund","doi":"10.1016/j.vetpar.2025.110533","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>We compared an artificial intelligence (AI)-based technology (OvaCyte™, OC) for the enumeration of strongyle eggs in sheep faeces with the McMaster method (MM). Initially, two experiments were performed with faeces containing pure <em>Haemonchus contortus</em> eggs. In experiment A, faeces containing three egg concentrations were processed using OC (extended and standard mode) in parallel with MM. In experiment B, faeces were spiked with different amounts of eggs. Secondly, samples from naturally infected sheep were analysed. Overall, EPG values in experiment A were consistent across all replicates at each dilution. Accuracy was particularly good for the AI-method (mean OC=72 %, mean MM=45 %), and it also achieved the highest precision (CV 5.6–40 %). In experiment B, as in experiment A, within replicate variability was observed at for both methods all concentrations. Although there were no significant differences between sample means, precision and the number of egg-positive samples was higher for OC. Finally, analysis of both experimental (r = 0.98) and field samples (r = 0.93) showed a strong positive correlation between OC and MM. OC also yielded a higher proportion of positive samples than MM in the field study OC provided a higher proportion of positive samples than MM. This study is the first comparison of OC and MM using both experimental and field-based data. In contrast to previous studies, our analysis was based on identical sample preparations that were processed in parallel using both methods. Although the results show strong agreement between methods, some limitations of OC were noted. These limitations can probably be overcome by further refinement of the AI model.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23716,"journal":{"name":"Veterinary parasitology","volume":"338 ","pages":"Article 110533"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative evaluation of an AI-based counting system (OvaCyte™) and the McMaster counting method for quantification of strongyle eggs in sheep faeces\",\"authors\":\"Giulio Grandi ,&nbsp;Jaroslav Vadlejch ,&nbsp;Johan Höglund\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.vetpar.2025.110533\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>We compared an artificial intelligence (AI)-based technology (OvaCyte™, OC) for the enumeration of strongyle eggs in sheep faeces with the McMaster method (MM). Initially, two experiments were performed with faeces containing pure <em>Haemonchus contortus</em> eggs. In experiment A, faeces containing three egg concentrations were processed using OC (extended and standard mode) in parallel with MM. In experiment B, faeces were spiked with different amounts of eggs. Secondly, samples from naturally infected sheep were analysed. Overall, EPG values in experiment A were consistent across all replicates at each dilution. Accuracy was particularly good for the AI-method (mean OC=72 %, mean MM=45 %), and it also achieved the highest precision (CV 5.6–40 %). In experiment B, as in experiment A, within replicate variability was observed at for both methods all concentrations. Although there were no significant differences between sample means, precision and the number of egg-positive samples was higher for OC. Finally, analysis of both experimental (r = 0.98) and field samples (r = 0.93) showed a strong positive correlation between OC and MM. OC also yielded a higher proportion of positive samples than MM in the field study OC provided a higher proportion of positive samples than MM. This study is the first comparison of OC and MM using both experimental and field-based data. In contrast to previous studies, our analysis was based on identical sample preparations that were processed in parallel using both methods. Although the results show strong agreement between methods, some limitations of OC were noted. These limitations can probably be overcome by further refinement of the AI model.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23716,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Veterinary parasitology\",\"volume\":\"338 \",\"pages\":\"Article 110533\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Veterinary parasitology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030440172500144X\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PARASITOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Veterinary parasitology","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030440172500144X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PARASITOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们将一种基于人工智能(AI)的技术(OvaCyte™,OC)与麦克马斯特方法(MM)进行了比较。最初,用含有纯弯曲血蜱卵的粪便进行了两次实验。在实验A中,含有三种鸡蛋浓度的粪便使用OC(扩展和标准模式)与MM并行处理。在实验B中,粪便中加入不同数量的鸡蛋。其次,分析了自然感染羊的样本。总的来说,实验A的EPG值在每次稀释的所有重复中都是一致的。人工智能方法的准确度特别好(平均OC=72 %,平均MM=45 %),也达到了最高的精度(CV 5.6-40 %)。在实验B中,与实验A一样,在重复中,两种方法的所有浓度都观察到变异性。虽然样本平均值之间没有显著差异,但OC的精度和卵阳性样本数量更高。最后,对实验样本(r = 0.98)和现场样本(r = 0.93)的分析表明,OC与MM之间存在很强的正相关关系。在现场研究中,OC产生的阳性样本比例也高于MM, OC提供的阳性样本比例高于MM。本研究首次使用实验和现场数据对OC和MM进行比较。与以前的研究相反,我们的分析是基于使用两种方法并行处理的相同样品制备。虽然结果显示了不同方法之间的强烈一致性,但也注意到OC的一些局限性。这些限制可以通过进一步完善AI模型来克服。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative evaluation of an AI-based counting system (OvaCyte™) and the McMaster counting method for quantification of strongyle eggs in sheep faeces
We compared an artificial intelligence (AI)-based technology (OvaCyte™, OC) for the enumeration of strongyle eggs in sheep faeces with the McMaster method (MM). Initially, two experiments were performed with faeces containing pure Haemonchus contortus eggs. In experiment A, faeces containing three egg concentrations were processed using OC (extended and standard mode) in parallel with MM. In experiment B, faeces were spiked with different amounts of eggs. Secondly, samples from naturally infected sheep were analysed. Overall, EPG values in experiment A were consistent across all replicates at each dilution. Accuracy was particularly good for the AI-method (mean OC=72 %, mean MM=45 %), and it also achieved the highest precision (CV 5.6–40 %). In experiment B, as in experiment A, within replicate variability was observed at for both methods all concentrations. Although there were no significant differences between sample means, precision and the number of egg-positive samples was higher for OC. Finally, analysis of both experimental (r = 0.98) and field samples (r = 0.93) showed a strong positive correlation between OC and MM. OC also yielded a higher proportion of positive samples than MM in the field study OC provided a higher proportion of positive samples than MM. This study is the first comparison of OC and MM using both experimental and field-based data. In contrast to previous studies, our analysis was based on identical sample preparations that were processed in parallel using both methods. Although the results show strong agreement between methods, some limitations of OC were noted. These limitations can probably be overcome by further refinement of the AI model.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Veterinary parasitology
Veterinary parasitology 农林科学-寄生虫学
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
126
审稿时长
36 days
期刊介绍: The journal Veterinary Parasitology has an open access mirror journal,Veterinary Parasitology: X, sharing the same aims and scope, editorial team, submission system and rigorous peer review. This journal is concerned with those aspects of helminthology, protozoology and entomology which are of interest to animal health investigators, veterinary practitioners and others with a special interest in parasitology. Papers of the highest quality dealing with all aspects of disease prevention, pathology, treatment, epidemiology, and control of parasites in all domesticated animals, fall within the scope of the journal. Papers of geographically limited (local) interest which are not of interest to an international audience will not be accepted. Authors who submit papers based on local data will need to indicate why their paper is relevant to a broader readership. Parasitological studies on laboratory animals fall within the scope of the journal only if they provide a reasonably close model of a disease of domestic animals. Additionally the journal will consider papers relating to wildlife species where they may act as disease reservoirs to domestic animals, or as a zoonotic reservoir. Case studies considered to be unique or of specific interest to the journal, will also be considered on occasions at the Editors'' discretion. Papers dealing exclusively with the taxonomy of parasites do not fall within the scope of the journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信