and up-to-date on our AI empowered digital cytology solutions.
.png)
- 100 thyroid ThinPrep slides categorized forground truth diagnosis (The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology) using a consensus of the original cytology report interpretation and the surgical pathology findings. All cases had a surgical result except Nondiagnostic cases.
- Urine slides were digitized as single-layer (S-WSIs)and 7-Z-layer (7-WSIs) WSIs by the 3D-Histech scanner and analyzed with AI-assistance software (AIxTHY)
- 5 reviewers including 3 cytopathologist (CP) and5 cytologists (CT) evaluated slides with a 2-week washout period between research arms:
- Arm 1- Microscopy only
- Arm 2- S-WSI with AIxTHY-assistance
- Arm 3- 7-WSI with AIxTHY-assistance
- Performance Metrics:
Comparison of study diagnosis with ground truth cytology diagnosis for 3 Arms across 500 total reads.
- Binary diagnostic accuracy (positive: TBS-III and above; negative: TBS-II)
- TBS category concordance (TBS-I~VI)
- Mean diagnostic turnaround time (second)
- Sensitivity: Improved with AIxTHY (Arm 2: 81.3%;Arm 3: 83.0%) compared with microscopy (Arm 1: 68.7%; p < 0.001); no difference between AI-assisted arms (p = 0.522).
- Specificity: Slightly lower with AIxTHY (Arm 2:68.0%; Arm 3: 65.7%) than microscopy (73.1%), significant for Arm 1 vs. Arm 3(p = 0.049).
- Overall Accuracy: Increased from 70.3%(microscopy) to 76.4–76.6% (AIxTHY; p = 0.004).
- Diagnostic Efficiency: Mean review time reduced by 32.8% (163.6 s → 109.9 s; p < 0.001).
- TBS Concordance: Overall comparable (Arm 1:52.4%; Arm 2: 51.4%; Arm 3: 53.5%).
- Higher agreement for indeterminate TBS-III with AIxTHY (44–53%) vs. microscopy (25%).
- Nondiagnostic (TBS-I) Rates: Decreased from10.8% to 6.4–5.6%, representing a 41–48% reduction.
- Several TBS-I cases were reclassified to TBS-II or ≥TBS-III under AI-assisted review.
AIxTHY improved sensitivity, diagnostic accuracy, and efficiency while reducing review time and nondiagnostic rates, with minimal impact on specificity. These results support its role in streamlining thyroid FNAC workflows through AI-assisted digital cytopathology
- 20 urine cytology slides, 5 types of preparation (cytospin, ThinPrep nonGYN, ThinPrep Urocyte, and BD CytoRich) were digitized using 3 digital scanners (Roch DP200, Roch DP600, and Hamamatsu Nanozoomer 360)
- Images were evaluated for quality, focus and color from the default, manual and advanced scanning modes by a senior cytologist
- Roche DP200 and DP600 scanners achieved good quality WSI (30-50% in default mode and 40-65% in manual mode)
- Hamamatsu achieved 90% good quality imaging only in the manual mode, whereas the default quality dropped to 15%. It also had a lower coefficient of variation for average number of atypical cells across all preparation types
Overall, Hamamatsu scanner showed better performance for image quality in the manual mode than Roche scanners, which performed better in the default mode. Hamamatsu scanners also had improved detection of atypical urothelial cells among triplicate images from the same samples compared to Roche scanners.
- 60 paired cytospin and CytoRich slides from 30 pts scanned into WSI and inferred using AIxURO AI-driven software, ranking into most top 24 suspicious cells/groups
- 3 senior cytologists with variable digital interpretive experience (A= over 1 year; B = 6 mo-1 yr; C = less than one month) evaluated interface gallery of images to render a diagnosis
- Dx performance was consistent for the 2 preparation types, with cytologists A & B showing excellent performance
- All reviewers spent similar amounts of time on review per preparation type, with cytologist C taking the least amount of time.
The AI-assisted tool allowed for excellent performance to aid interpretation of upper GU tract urothelial carcinoma
- 116 urine cytology slides digitized into WSI and analyzed by AI-assisted software to identify and categorize abnormal cells into suspicious (likely SHGUC or HGUC) or atypical (AUC) categories
- 1 cytopathologist (CP) and 2 cytologists (CP) reviewed all slides microscopically (Arm 1), as a WSI (Arm 2) and with AI-assistance presenting the top 24 most abnormal cells in a gallery display (Arm 3), with a 2-week wash-out period between reviews
- Performance Metrics: Comparison of expert panel consensus of the glass slide (86 negative, 30 positive) to the review diagnoses to calculate sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV, along with the time spent examining the slide for each arm per individual
- AI-assisted software (AIxURO) improved the overall sensitivity (from 82.2% to 92.2%) and NPV (from 93.4% to 96.5%) but decreased specificity (from 87.2% to 75.6%), PPV (from 69.2% to 56.8%) and accuracy (from 85.9% to 79.9%) compared to microscopy. The WSI performance was the worst arm.
- Time for slide review was significantly reduced overall (from 159.9 min for microscopy to 106.3 minutes for AI-assisted), as well as per individual slide (from 1.38 min to 0.92 min)
AI-assistance improves the sensitivity and NPV of urine cytology review, but at the expense of a decrease in specificity, PPV and accuracy. This may indicate that AI-assistance will facilitate the detection of abnormal urothelial cells while lowering the time required for slide review.
- 52 urine cytology slides from bladder cancer patients (24 cytospin, 16 ThinPrep, 12 Cytorich) were digitally scanned with Leica AT2 using conventional Z-stacking (Z = 0 to Z = +10 layers above and below at 1 µm intervals) and compared with using a heuristic scanning simulation method with AI to determine regions of interest (ROI) for scanning, whereby the software determines the ideal number of layers to scan, from 3 layers (Z = 0+1) to 21 layers (Z = +10).
- Performance Metrics: Total number of suspicious cells; coverage rate (ratio of suspicious cells in single vs multiple Z-layers to the total suspicious cells in 21 Z-layers); scanning time (seconds); and image file size for storage (in gigabytes).
- Heuristic scanning was comparable to Z-stacking with similar average numbers of suspicious cell coverage rates (79.3% cytospin; 85.9% TP; 78.3% CytoRich) to those of Z-stacking (81.9% in 5 layers for cytospin, 87.1% in 9 layers for TP, 82.9% in 7 layers for CytoRich).
- Heuristic scanning significantly reduced scanning time (65-72%) and image file size (by 46-64%).
- Heuristic scanning in low cellularity slides was more accurate (7/7 correct diagnoses) than using single Z-layer WSI (4/7 correct diagnoses)
Heuristic scanning is an effective alternative to conventional Z-stacking to identify suspicious cells on urine cytology slides, with the advantage of reducing scanning time and image file size.
- 100 paired cytospin and CytoRich urine cytology slides from 50 bladder cancer patients digitized to create WSI and analyzed with AI-assisted software that identifies the most atypical urothelial cells and displays them in a gallery of the top 24
- 3 cytologists with variable digital pathology experience (A= over 12 months; B= 6-12 months; C= less than one month) reviewed the AI-assisted images and interpreted them using The Paris System categories
- No significant difference in diagnostic performance of cytologists between preparations (cytospin vs CytoRich)
- Digital pathology experience improved performance, with C having the poorest performance
- Sensitivity = 84-96%; Specificity = 92- 96%; PPV = 91.3-95.7%; NPV = 85.2-95.8%; accuracy = 88-94%
- Cytologist C took the least time reviewing slides (median 29.5-30 sec) compared to the other 2 (median 63.5-71.5 sec)
AI-assistance markedly improves efficiency for the interpretation of upper urinary tract cytology. Experience using the software system enhances overall performance and diagnostic concordance.
- 116 urine cytology WSI (76 cytospin, 40 CytoRich) scanned with Leica AT2 at 20X and analyzed and ranked “top 24” by AI-deep learning algorithm for most abnormal urothelial cells
- 1 cytopathologist (CP) and 2 cytologists (CT) evaluated WSI with AI-assistance and diagnosed slides as NHGUC, AUC, SHGUC or HGUC according to The Paris System 2.0.
- Performance Metrics: Concordance with original cytologic diagnosis and time to diagnosis compared to conventional microscopy
- AI-assistance increased sensitivity for all 2 reviewers (from 83.3-100%) and improved time efficiency from 159.9 mins to 106.3 min)
- Specificity was reduced for the CTs, but not the CP
AI-assistance using a deep learning algorithm to identify and rank abnormal cells improves overall clinical sensitivity for the detection of urothelial carcinoma while improving clinical efficiency through time-savings.
- 14 positive (HGUC) urine cytology specimens (cytospin and ThinPrep) digitized with Leica Aperio AT2 scanner at 4 different scan modes:
- Mode A- Default automatic
- Mode B- Optimized automatic
- Mode C- Manually focused points of adjustment
- Mode D- Multilayer Z-stacking
- Performance metrics:
- Rate of successful scanning (total slides that obtain WSI files from scanner);
- Number of high risk cells detected by AI algorithm
- Coverage rate of high risk cells (detected high risk cells in one Z-layer divided by the total high risk cells detected in 21 Z-layer WSI per slide)
- Advanced scan modes increase successful slide scanning, but does not increase the average high risk cell detection or coverage rates
- More high risk cells were detected with TP than cytospin but with comparable coverage rates
- More Z-layers increased average high risk cell detection and coverage rates
Advanced scan modes improve the success rate of obtaining an optimal WSI and the number and coverage rate of high risk cells increases with multiple Z-layers. More high risk cells were detected on ThinPrep vs cytospin but this did not significantly affect the AI algorithm analytic results.
- 45 HGUC urine cytology slides and 45 negative (NHGUC) slides digitized into WSI and inferred by an AI-algorithm to identify potential cancer cells.
- 12, 24, 36, or 48 abnormal cell thumbnail images were order-ranked by AI and presented in a reviewer gallery
- 2 cytologists reviewed thumbnail images and rendered a diagnosis based on The Paris System for Reporting Urine Cytology 2.0 for each gallery set
- Concordance with microscopy performed for each gallery set, requiring an exact match (HGUC to HGUC, NHGUC to NHGUC)
- Concordance for HGUC was significantly improved by increasing the number of diagnostic cells in the gallery from 38.9% to 91.1%, but were slightly decreased for NHGUC specimens from 92.2% to 90%.
- The highest concordance rate (95.6%) was established at 36 gallery cell images, but was only slightly decreased with 48 images
36 thumbnail cell images provides the highest concordance for HGUC vs NHGUC diagnoses in urine cytology
- 104 urine cytology slides (70 NHGUC and 34 positive [AUC, SHGUC, HGUC]), with diagnostic confirmation by an expert panel
- Review of AI (deep learning algorithm)- inferred digital gallery images by 1 cytopathologist (CP) and 2 cytologists (CT), assigning cases to The Paris System (TPS 2.0) diagnostic categories (4 week washout period between Arm 1 and 3)
- Arm 1- Microscopic review of urine cytology glass slide by CP
- Arm 2- WSI review of slide by CP
- Arm 3- AI-assisted review of images by CP and CTs
- Performance Metrics:
- Comparison of diagnostic concordance with sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy for CP and CTs against initial diagnosis
- Comparison of diagnostic concordance with sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy between conventional microscopy and AI-assisted image review for the CP
Microscopic Glass Slide Review versus AI-Assisted Image Review (CP only)
- Sensitivity: 85.2% vs 91.2% (+5.9%)
- Specificity: 100% vs 100%
- PPV: 100% vs 100%
- NPV: 93. vs 95.9% (+2.6%)
- Accuracy: 95.2% vs 97.1% (+1.9%)
AI-Assisted Review (CTA, CTB and CP)
- Sensitivity: 76.5%, 79.4%, 91.2%
- Specificity: 100%, 98.6%, 100%
- PPV: 100%, 96.4%, 100%
- NPV: 89.7%, 90.8%, 95.9%
- Accuracy: 92.3%, 92.3%, 97.1%
AI-assisted diagnoses were comparable to expert panel consensus (sensitivity 76.5 – 91.2%) with high specificity (98.6-100%). AI-assisted interpretation showed better sensitivity, NPV, and accuracy than conventional microscopy.

