Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 9, 2026
Determining Soil-transmitted Helminth Infection Status and Physical Fitness of School-aged Children
Published on: August 22, 2012
Artificial intelligence-based digital pathology for the detection and quantification of soil-transmitted helminths
Nancy Cure-Bolt1, Fernando Perez2, Lindsay A Broadfield3
1Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Titusville, New Jersey, United States of America.
Background:
Conventional microscopy of Kato-Katz (KK1.0) thick smears, the primary method for diagnosing soil-transmitted helminth (STH) infections, has limited sensitivity and is error-prone. Artificial intelligence-based digital pathology (AI-DP) may overcome the constraints of traditional microscopy-based diagnostics. This study in Ucayali, a remote Amazonian region of Peru, compares the performance of AI-DP-based Kato-Katz (KK2.0) method to KK1.0 at diagnosing STH infections in school-aged children (SAC).
Methods:
In this prospective, non-interventional study, 510 stool samples from SAC (aged 5-14 years) were analyzed using KK1.0, KK2.0, and tube spontaneous sedimentation technique (TSET). KK1.0 and KK2.0 slides were evaluated at 30-minute and 24-hour timepoints for detection of Ascaris lumbricoides, Trichuris trichiura, and hookworms (at 30-minute only). Diagnostic performance was assessed by measuring STH eggs per gram of stool (EPG), sensitivity of methods, and agreement between the methods.
Results:
KK2.0 detected more A. lumbricoides positive samples than KK1.0, with detection rates for T. trichiura and hookworms being comparable. At 30-minutes, 37.6%, 23.0%, and 2.6% of the samples tested positive based on KK1.0 for A. lumbricoides, T. trichiura, and hookworms, while this was 49.8%, 24.4%, and 1.9% for KK2.0. At 24-hours, 37.1% and 27.1% of the samples tested positive based on KK1.0 for A. lumbricoides and T. trichiura, while this was 45.8% and 24.1% for KK2.0. Mean EPG between KK2.0 and KK1.0 were not statistically different across STH species and timepoints, except for T. trichiura at 24-hours (higher mean EPG for KK1.0, p = 0.036). When considering infection intensity levels, KK2.0 identified 10% more of the total population as low-infection intensity samples of A. lumbricoides than KK1.0 (p ≤ 0.001, both timepoints) and similar to KK1.0 for T. trichiura and hookworms. Varying agreement existed between KK1.0 and KK2.0 in detecting STH eggs (A. lumbricoides: moderate; T. trichiura: substantial; hookworms: slight). However, these findings should be interpreted carefully as there are certain limitations that may have impacted the results of this study.
Conclusions:
This study demonstrates the potential of the AI-DP-based method for STH diagnosis. While similar to KK1.0, the AI-DP-based method outperforms it in certain aspects. These findings underscore the potential of advancing the AI-DP KK2.0 prototype for dependable STH diagnosis and furthering the development of automated digital microscopes in accordance with WHO guidelines for STH diagnosis.
