and up-to-date on our AI empowered digital cytology solutions.
.png)
- De-identified ThinPrep urine cytology slides (200) were retrospectively selected. Two cytopathologists (CP) provided consensus diagnoses (ground truth, GT) for all cases: 100 Negative for High-Grade Urothelial Carcinoma (NHGUC), 35 Atypical Urothelial Cells (AUC), 32 Suspicious for HGUC (SHGUC), and 33 HGUC.
- Slides were digitized into WSIs utilizing Mikroscan SLxCyto and customized Huron WSI imagers and examined using AI-assisted WSI review (AIxURO)
- 1 cytopathologist (CP) and 2 cytologists (CT) blindly reviewed slides with a 2-week washout period between research arms:
o Arm 1- Microscopy only
o Arm 2- AIxURO Mikroscan SLxCyto’s WSI review
o Arm 3- AIxURO customized Huron’s WSI review
- Performance Metrics:
o Comparison of study diagnosis with ground truth diagnosis for 3 Arms using following thresholds:
(1) AUC+ (AUC, SHGUC and HGUC) cases as positive; NHGUC cases as negative
(2) SHGUC+ (SHGUC and HGUC) cases as positive; NHGUC and AUC cases as negative
o The slide evaluation time (SET) in each arm was documented and made comparison.
- Diagnostic performance using the AUC+ threshold, AIxURO WSI review (Arm 2 and Arm 3) demonstrated higher sensitivity than microscopy (85.0% and 88.3% vs 79.3% overall). However, AIxURO WSI review exhibited lower specificity than microscopy (85.7% and 82.7% vs. 94.3%).
- When using the SHGUC+ threshold, AIxURO WSI review demonstrated higher overall sensitivity (74.9% and 86.2 vs 76.9%) and slightly lower specificity (96.0% and 92.3% vs 97.5% overall) compared to microscopy.
- AIxURO WSI review markedly reduced the SET versus microscopy (35.9s and 36.4s vs 102.6s). SETs for AUC+ are 45s and 43.6s vs 116.4s, while SET for negative cases are 26.5s and 29.1s vs 88.9s.
AIxURO WSI review demonstrated higher sensitivity but lower specificity than microscopy for AUC+ and SHGUC+ thresholds. Notably, AIxURO WSI review reduced slide evaluation time by at least 64.5%, offering substantial efficiency gains. These findings highlight AIxURO’s potential to enhance workflow efficiency in settings withstaffing shortages while maintaining diagnostic performance.
- 296 urine cytology slides from confirmed biopsy-positive cases within six months (70 AUC, 65 SHGUC,161 HGUC)
- Slides digitized into WSIs with Leica AT2 scanner
- AI algorithm identified and categorized cells with high (suspicious) or low (atypical) malignancy risk based on The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology (TPS) features; Top-24 category order-ranks 24 most abnormal cells
- Performance Metrics: Mean values of suspicious cells, atypical cells, and the top-24 cells (cells ranked by highest probability of malignancy) with TPS features compared across the three categories (HGUC, SHGUC, and AUC).
- HGUC cases had significantly higher mean number of abnormal cells for top-24 cells (12.2 vs. 5.5 vs. 2.5), suspicious cells (91.6 vs. 13.1 vs. 2.7), and atypical cells (885.1 vs. 108.9 vs. 30.8) compared to SHGUC and AUC, respectively.
- Top-24 and suspicious cells displayed higher N:C ratio (0.65-0.66) and larger nuclear area (106-113 mm 2 ) than atypical cells (0.57 and 86-91 mm 2 ) across three categories.
- Percentage of cells with all 3 key TPS morphological features across 3 categories:
o Top-24 cells- 84%-95%
o Suspicious cells- 81%-91%
o Atypical cells- 22%-39%
- Critical distinguishing feature between suspicious and atypical was hyperchromasia
o 93% of suspicious cells
o 24%-40% of atypical cells.
- Percentage of top-24 / suspicious cells with all 3 TPS features:
o HGUC (95% / 91%)
o SHGUC (89% / 89%)
o AUC (84% / 81%)
HGUC showed the highest numbers of abnormal urothelial cells compared to SHGUC and AUC. N/C ratio and nuclear sizes were larger in top-24 and suspicious cell categories compared to the atypical cell category. Hyperchromasia was the most important distinguishing morphologic feature between suspicious and atypical cells. HGUC had the highest % of top-24 and suspicious cells with all 3 TPS morphologic features, indicating that the AI algorithm correctly selected features predicting HGUC. These findings highlight AI’s potential to enhance accuracy and efficiency in bladder cancer diagnosis.
- Ten de-identified ThinPrep Urocyte slides with surgical concordance as gold standard/ground truth (4 NHGUC, 2 AUC, 1 SHGUC, 3 HGUC) digitized into WSIs using five digital imagers:
o Leica Aperio AT2
o Hamamatsu S360
o 3DHistech P1000
o Customized Huron WSI model
o Mikroscan SLxCyto
- AI algorithm was applied to the WSIs to detect suspicious cells (high-malignant risk) and atypical urothelial cells (low-malignant risk).
- 3 cytologists (CT) reported diagnosis on slides with 2-week washout period between arms:
o Arm 1- Microscopy only
o Arm 2- AI-assisted WSI review
- Performance Metrics:
o WSI conversion rate
o Comparison of binary (positive vs negative) diagnosis (AUC, SHGUC, and HGUC cases = positive) with ground truth diagnosis for 2 Arms
o Quantitative data analysis
- All digital imagers achieved a 100% WSI conversion rate.
- In the binary diagnosis, AI-assisted WSI review demonstrated performance comparable to microscopy across all imagers
- Quantitative analysis revealed slight variations in key metrics, including suspicious/atypical cell numbers, nuclear-to-cytoplasmic (N:C) ratio, and nuclear area, among WSIs produced by different imagers
First study to assess multiple digital pathology imagers for AI-assisted urine cytology. Results demonstrate that a disease-specific AI algorithm produces consistent diagnostic performance and quantitative analysis across different WSIs, supporting its potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy across imaging platforms.
- De-identified ThinPrep urine cytology slides (200) were retrospectively selected. Two cytopathologists (CP) provided consensus diagnoses (ground truth, GT) for all cases: 100 Negative for High-Grade Urothelial Carcinoma (NHGUC), 35 Atypical Urothelial Cells (AUC), 32 Suspicious for HGUC (SHGUC), and 33 HGUC.
- Slides were digitized into WSIs utilizing Mikroscan SLxCyto and customized Huron WSI imagers and examined using AI-assisted WSI review (AIxURO)
- 1 cytopathologist (CP) and 2 cytologists (CT) blindly reviewed slides with a 2-week washout period between research arms:
o Arm 1- Microscopy only
o Arm 2- AIxURO Mikroscan SLxCyto’s WSI review
o Arm 3- AIxURO customized Huron’s WSI review
- Performance Metrics:
o Comparison of study diagnosis with ground truth diagnosis for 3 Arms using following thresholds:
(1) AUC+ (AUC, SHGUC and HGUC) cases as positive; NHGUC cases as negative
(2) SHGUC+ (SHGUC and HGUC) cases as positive; NHGUC and AUC cases as negative
o The slide evaluation time (SET) in each arm was documented and made comparison.
- Diagnostic performance using the AUC+ threshold, AIxURO WSI review (Arm 2 and Arm 3) demonstrated higher sensitivity than microscopy (85.0% and 88.3% vs 79.3% overall). However, AIxURO WSI review exhibited lower specificity than microscopy (85.7% and 82.7% vs. 94.3%).
- When using the SHGUC+ threshold, AIxURO WSI review demonstrated higher overall sensitivity (74.9% and 86.2 vs 76.9%) and slightly lower specificity (96.0% and 92.3% vs 97.5% overall) compared to microscopy.
- AIxURO WSI review markedly reduced the SET versus microscopy (35.9s and 36.4s vs 102.6s). SETs for AUC+ are 45s and 43.6s vs 116.4s, while SET for negative cases are 26.5s and 29.1s vs 88.9s.
AIxURO WSI review demonstrated higher sensitivity but lower specificity than microscopy for AUC+ and SHGUC+ thresholds. Notably, AIxURO WSI review reduced slide evaluation time by at least 64.5%, offering substantial efficiency gains. These findings highlight AIxURO’s potential to enhance workflow efficiency in settings withstaffing shortages while maintaining diagnostic performance.
- 296 urine cytology slides from confirmed biopsy-positive cases within six months (70 AUC, 65 SHGUC,161 HGUC)
- Slides digitized into WSIs with Leica AT2 scanner
- AI algorithm identified and categorized cells with high (suspicious) or low (atypical) malignancy risk based on The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology (TPS) features; Top-24 category order-ranks 24 most abnormal cells
- Performance Metrics: Mean values of suspicious cells, atypical cells, and the top-24 cells (cells ranked by highest probability of malignancy) with TPS features compared across the three categories (HGUC, SHGUC, and AUC).
- HGUC cases had significantly higher mean number of abnormal cells for top-24 cells (12.2 vs. 5.5 vs. 2.5), suspicious cells (91.6 vs. 13.1 vs. 2.7), and atypical cells (885.1 vs. 108.9 vs. 30.8) compared to SHGUC and AUC, respectively.
- Top-24 and suspicious cells displayed higher N:C ratio (0.65-0.66) and larger nuclear area (106-113 mm 2 ) than atypical cells (0.57 and 86-91 mm 2 ) across three categories.
- Percentage of cells with all 3 key TPS morphological features across 3 categories:
o Top-24 cells- 84%-95%
o Suspicious cells- 81%-91%
o Atypical cells- 22%-39%
- Critical distinguishing feature between suspicious and atypical was hyperchromasia
o 93% of suspicious cells
o 24%-40% of atypical cells.
- Percentage of top-24 / suspicious cells with all 3 TPS features:
o HGUC (95% / 91%)
o SHGUC (89% / 89%)
o AUC (84% / 81%)
HGUC showed the highest numbers of abnormal urothelial cells compared to SHGUC and AUC. N/C ratio and nuclear sizes were larger in top-24 and suspicious cell categories compared to the atypical cell category. Hyperchromasia was the most important distinguishing morphologic feature between suspicious and atypical cells. HGUC had the highest % of top-24 and suspicious cells with all 3 TPS morphologic features, indicating that the AI algorithm correctly selected features predicting HGUC. These findings highlight AI’s potential to enhance accuracy and efficiency in bladder cancer diagnosis.
- Ten de-identified ThinPrep Urocyte slides with surgical concordance as gold standard/ground truth (4 NHGUC, 2 AUC, 1 SHGUC, 3 HGUC) digitized into WSIs using five digital imagers:
o Leica Aperio AT2
o Hamamatsu S360
o 3DHistech P1000
o Customized Huron WSI model
o Mikroscan SLxCyto
- AI algorithm was applied to the WSIs to detect suspicious cells (high-malignant risk) and atypical urothelial cells (low-malignant risk).
- 3 cytologists (CT) reported diagnosis on slides with 2-week washout period between arms:
o Arm 1- Microscopy only
o Arm 2- AI-assisted WSI review
- Performance Metrics:
o WSI conversion rate
o Comparison of binary (positive vs negative) diagnosis (AUC, SHGUC, and HGUC cases = positive) with ground truth diagnosis for 2 Arms
o Quantitative data analysis
- All digital imagers achieved a 100% WSI conversion rate.
- In the binary diagnosis, AI-assisted WSI review demonstrated performance comparable to microscopy across all imagers
- Quantitative analysis revealed slight variations in key metrics, including suspicious/atypical cell numbers, nuclear-to-cytoplasmic (N:C) ratio, and nuclear area, among WSIs produced by different imagers
First study to assess multiple digital pathology imagers for AI-assisted urine cytology. Results demonstrate that a disease-specific AI algorithm produces consistent diagnostic performance and quantitative analysis across different WSIs, supporting its potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy across imaging platforms.
• 100 thyroid ThinPrep slides categorized for ground 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 WSIs and analyzed with AI-assistance software (AIxTHY)
• 1 cytopathologist (CP) and 2 cytologists (CT) evaluated slides with a 2-week washout period between research arms:
o Arm 1- Microscopy only
o Arm 2- WSI only
o Arm 3- WSI with AI-assistance
• Performance Metrics: Comparison of study diagnosis with ground truth diagnosis for 3 Arms, using following cut-off values:
o Threshold 1: Negative = TBS II; Positive = V or VI (III and IV are indeterminate)
o Threshold 2: Negative = TBS II; Positive = IV, V, VI (III excluded)
o Threshold 3: Negative = TBS II (Benign); Positive = III, IV, V, VI (Atypia of undetermined significance, Follicular neoplasm, Suspicious for malignancy, Malignant)
o All TBS I (Nondiagnostic) cases were excluded from the study
- Threshold 1 (TBS V+ as positive) showed highest accuracy and consensus with biopsy and cytology (Arm 1 = 100%; Arm 2 = 95.7%;Arm 3 = 100%)
- Threshold 3 (TBS III+ as positive) showed accuracy of Arm 1 = 75.8%; Arm 2 = 72.7%; Arm 3 = 72.9%
- For AI-assistance (Arm 3), Threshold TBS iV+ had higher Sensitivity (93.5%), Specificity (96.2%), PPV (96.6% and NPV (92.6%)than including atypia (TBS III+)(Sensitivity = 94.3%; Specificity = 78.9%; PPV= 83.2%; NPV = 92.6%; accuracy 87.0%)
- Using consensus cytology+biopsy reports to determine accuracy yielded higher accuracy, compared to lower accuracy with cytology diagnosis alone
The accuracy of AI-assisted thyroid cytology diagnosis closelyapproximates microscopic accuracy, but dependent on the cut-off point for“negative” and “positive” results. The best diagnostic review concordance occurswhen both cytology and biopsy results serve as the “ground truth” for thestudy.
- 242 urine cytology slides (74 AUC, 56 SHGUC, 112 HGUC) from patients with biopsy-confirmed HGUC within a 6-month window
- 162 (67%) Cytospin, 60 (25%) TP-UroCyte, 20 (8%) BD CytoRich
- 124,980 abnormal cells inferred by AI-assisted digital software system (AIxURO)
- 54% of biopsy proven CIS or HGUC cases had a cytology interpretation of AUC or SHGUC; 46% cytology interpretation of HGUC
- Evaluation of N/C ratios and nuclear sizes for the top 24 most abnormal cells, and for the categories of suspicious cells vs atypical cells, with statistical significance
- Average N/C ratios:some text
- Top 24 abnormal cells = 0.66 (95% CI; 0.65-0.66)
- Suspicious cell category = 0.65 (95% CI; 0.64-0.65)
- Atypical cell category = 0.57 (95% CI; 0.57-0.57)(p < 0.0001)
- Average nuclear size:some text
- Top 24 abnormal cells = 108.1-116.8 µm2
- Atypical cell category = 86.3-87.7 µm2
- Significantly larger nuclear sizes occurred in the top 24 abnormal and suspicious cell categories than in atypical cells category
- Nuclear size of biopsy:CIS cells was significantly larger than those of biopsy:HGUC cells for all AI-categories
- Slightly more HGUC biopsy cases were cytologically interpreted as AUC or SHGUC than as HGUC
AI-assistance demonstrates a predictable quantitative advantage for assessment of nuclear size and N/C ratio when assessing atypical and suspicious cells using The Paris System. The average N/C ratio is lower (0.66) than that suggested for HGUC/SHGUC (0.70) in TPS.
- 296 urine cytology slides from 113 patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma, with matching pre- and post-operative cytology, pathology, and follow up for recurrence
- Comparison of cytology slides digitized and independently assessed by AIxURO to original cytology report
- 88/113 (77.8%) patients had 1-2 cytology specimens preoperatively
- 44/204 (21.5%) positive cytology slides with 34/113 patients diagnosed with upper tract carcinoma (UTUC)
- Postop recurrence detected in 27/113 patients (23%) at average 190 days
- 34/56 slides (60.7%) were negative for UTUC
- 8/27 patients (29.6%) met criteria for early diagnosis of intravesical recurrence
- AIxURO identified 2 more patients (10/27; 37%) with early intravesical recurrence
AI-assisted diagnostic imaging (AIxURO) enhanced detection of underdiagnosed urine cytology slides to capture early recurrence in UTUC.
An AI-based logistic regression model was developed to determine the optimal number of abnormal urothelial cells (HGUC, SGHUC, or AUC) required to accurately predict the presence of bladder cancer. The study goal was to evaluate the accuracy and effectiveness of the logistic models in predicting bladder cancer from clinical urine cytology test datasets.
- 2025 cytology slide images (471 positives, 1334 negatives) were analyzed by the AI algorithm
- Abnormal cells were categorized as suspicious (SHGUC+) or atypical (AUC)
- Preparation types: Cytospin, ThinPrep, BD CytoRich, and TP-Urocyte
- Cell numbers were standardized by preparation sample area (mm2)
- Calculations:
- Suspicious cell numbers
- Log of suspicious cell numbers
- Atypical cell numbers
- Log of atypical cell numbers
- Performance Metrics: Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, ROC curve
- Logistic model- suspicious cells: 91.69 Accuracy, 64.29 Sensitivity, 95.44 Specificity
- Log Suspicious cells: 65.33 Accuracy, 95.24 Sensitivity, 61.24 Specificity
- Logistic model-atypical cells: 94.27 Accuracy, 69.05 Sensitivity, 97.72 Specificity
- Log Atypical cells: 76.22 Accuracy, 88.1 Sensitivity, 74.59 Specificity
- Cell cut-off value per preparation type:some text
- Suspicious cutoff value: 0.189 (Cytospin 5 cells, TP 59, CytoRich 25, UroCyte 10
- Atypical cutoff value: 1.823 (Cytospin 52 cells, TP 573, 242 CytoRich, 49 UroCyte
Suspicious cell cut-off values support TPS criteria, with more than 5 suspicious cells categorized as SHGUC or higher indicating high likelihood of HGUC
Atypical cell cut-off values can aid in identifying potential false-negative cases when suspicious cell numbers are below cut-off values but atypical numbers are higher.
- 109 urine cytology cytospin cases with surgically-confirmed HGUC, HGUC-CIS, “positive” or CIS within a 6 month pre-or post-urine collection window
- Digitally analyzed by AIxURO AI-deep learning software for N/C ratio and nuclear area for the cytologic specimen diagnoses of AUC, SHGUC, and HGUC
- Comparison of the cytologic and surgical diagnoses by mean cell numbers per slide, mean N/C ratio, and mean nuclear area (µm2)
- Cell Quantification: AIxURO categorized fewer suspicious cells (mean 160.0) compared to atypical cells (mean 929.6)
- N/C Ratio and Nuclear Area: Suspicious cells had higher mean N/C ratio (0.66 vs 0.58) and higher mean nuclear area (107.2 vs 66,9 µm2) than atypical cells
- Mean N/C for suspicious cells across all biopsies = 0.65 to 0.68
- Larger nuclear areas were also noted in SHGUC (13.9% difference) and HGUC (24.4% difference)
- Carcinoma in situ (CIS) had the largest mean nuclear area for both suspicious (117.3 µm2) and atypical (101.1 µm2) cells
A lower mean N/C ratio for suspicious cells as an indicator of biopsy-proven HGUC using TPS should be considered, especially for AI-assisted urine cytology software programs. AIxURO categorized suspicious cells have a higher nuclear area than categorized atypical cells. Very large nuclear areas may be an indicator of CIS.
- 183 urine cytology slides (140 CytoRich, 43 SurePath), with expert panel consensus diagnoses as NHGUC (83), AUC (45), SHGUC (27), and HGUC (28)
- Slides scanned by Leica AT2 and Hamamatsu S360 digital scanners with images inferred by the AI algorithm (AIxURO), using The Paris System (TPS) 2.0 criteria
- AIxURO separated abnormal cells into “suspicious” and “atypical” categories for investigator review
- 3-Arm Study:
- 6 reviewers (1 cytopathologist and 5 cytologists) interpreted the slides using conventional microscopy only (Arm 1), Leica whole slide image (WSI) with AIxURO AI-assistance (Arm 2), and Hamamatsu WSI with AIxURO AI-assistance (Arm 3) with a 2-week wash-out period between reviews
3294 total reviews (microscopy + WSI + AIxURO); binary distribution as positive (AUC, SHGUC, or HGUC) or negative (NHGUC)
- Sensitivity and Specificity of AIxURO with Leica: 85.0% and 90.0%
- Sensitivity and Specificity of AIxURO with Hamamatsu: 82.9% and 89.6%
- Sensitivity and Specificity of microscopy only: 83.7% and 89.4%
- Total Time for review of AIxURO with Leica: 37.4 seconds
- Total Time for Review of AIxURO with Hamamatsu: 53.1 seconds
- Total Time for Review of microscopy only: 82.0 seconds
- Reviewers (3) experienced with the AIxURO system had higher sensitivity (91.3% vs 78.7%) but lower specificity (87.7% vs 92.3%) and spent less time (30.6 sec vs 44.4 sec) than the 3 without experience
Use of AI-assisted software (AIxURO) to classify abnormal urothelial cells into atypical or suspicious categories improved the overall sensitivity and specificity for a binary interpretation over conventional microscopy. Additionally, AI-assistance significantly reduced reporting time by 52.4% (AIxURO + Leica AT2) and 35.2% (AIxURO + Hamamatsu) compared to microscopy. Experienced users of AIxURO showed better overall performance, suggesting that training and experience with AI-assistance will improve performance.