Digital image analysis of Ki67 hotspot detection and index counting in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms.

The Ki-67 proliferative index plays a pivotal role in the subclassification of neuroendocrine neoplasm (NEN) according to the WHO Classification of Digestive System Tumors (5th edition), which designates neuroendocrine tumor (NET) grades 1, 2, and 3 for Ki-67 proliferative index of <3 %, 3-20 %, and >20 %, respectively. Proliferative index calculation must be performed in the hotspot, traditionally selected by visual scanning at low-power magnification. Recently, gradient map visualization has emerged as a tool for various purposes, including hotspot selection. This study includes 97 cases of gastrointestinal neuroendocrine neoplasms, with hotspots selected by bare eye and gradient map visualization (GM). Each hotspot was analyzed using three methods: eye estimation (EE), digital image analysis (DIA), and manual counting. Of the NENs studied, 91 % were NETs (26 % for G1, 55 % for G2, and 10 % for G3). Only 9 cases were neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC). Between two hotspot selection methods, GM resulted in a higher grade in 14.77 % of cases, primarily upgrading from NET G1 to G2. Among the counting methods, DIA demonstrated substantial agreement with manual counting, both for pathologist and resident. Grading by other methods tended to result in a higher grade than MC (26.99 % with EE and 8.52 % with DIA). Given its clinical and statistical significance, this study advocates for the application of GM in hotspot selection to identify higher-grade tumors. Furthermore, DIA provides accurate grading, offering time efficiency over MC.

High-throughput detection of parasites and ova in stool using the fully automatic digital feces analyzer, orienter model fa280.

BACKGROUND: Intestinal parasitic infections can harm health by causing malnutrition, anemia, impaired growth and cognitive development, and alterations in microbiota composition and immune responses. Therefore, it is crucial to examine stool samples to diagnose parasitic infections. However, the traditional microscopic detection method is time-consuming, labor-intensive, and dependent on the expertise and training of microscopists. Hence, there is a need for a low-complexity, high-throughput, and cost-effective alternative to labor-intensive microscopic examinations. METHODS: This study aimed to compare the performance of a fully automatic digital feces analyzer, Orienter Model FA280 (People's Republic of China) with that of the formalin-ethyl acetate concentration technique (FECT). We assessed and compared the agreement between the FA280 and the FECT for parasite detection and species identification in stool samples. The first part of the study analyzed 200 fresh stool samples for parasite detection using the FECT and FA280. With the FA280, the automatic feces analyzer performed the testing, and the digital microscope images were uploaded and automatically evaluated using an artificial intelligence (AI) program. Additionally, a skilled medical technologist conducted a user audit of the FA280 findings. The second set of samples comprised 800 preserved stool samples (preserved in 10% formalin). These samples were examined for parasites using the FECT and FA280 with a user audit. RESULTS: For the first set of stool samples, there was no statistically significant difference in the pairwise agreements between the FECT and the FA280 with a user audit (exact binomial test, P = 1). However, there were statistically significant differences between the pairwise agreements for the FECT and the FA280 with the AI report (McNemar's test, P < 0.001). The agreement for the species identification of parasites between the FA280 with AI report and FECT showed fair agreement (overall agreement = 75.5%, kappa [κ] = 0.367, 95% CI 0.248-0.486). On the other hand, the user audit for the FA280 and FECT showed perfect agreement (overall agreement = 100%, κ = 1.00, 95% CI 1.00-1.00). For the second set of samples, the FECT detected significantly more positive samples for parasites than the FA280 with a user audit (McNemar's test, P < 0.001). The disparity in results may be attributed to the FECT using significantly larger stool samples than those used by the FA280. The larger sample size used by the FECT potentially contributed to the higher parasite detection rate. Regarding species identification, there was strong agreement between the FECT and the FA280 with a user audit for helminths (κ = 0.857, 95% CI 0.82-0.894). Similarly, there was perfect agreement for the species identification of protozoa between the FECT and the FA280 with user audit (κ = 1.00, 95% CI 1.00-1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Although the FA280 has advantages in terms of simplicity, shorter performance time, and reduced contamination in the laboratory, there are some limitations to consider. These include a higher cost per sample testing and a lower sensitivity compared to the FECT. However, the FA280 enables rapid, convenient, and safe stool examination of parasitic infections.