Comparative performance of OvaCyte™ Fluke Plus and conventional methods for detecting fluke eggs in domestic ruminants
Year: 2026
Type: article
Abstract: Background Liver and rumen flukes are major trematode parasites of grazing livestock. Methods This study compared the diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and quantitative recovery of three faecal egg count techniques for the differential detection of liver and rumen fluke eggs in ovine and bovine faeces: (i) the automated AI-based OvaCyte™ Fluke Plus system, (ii) a reference laboratory centrifugation and flotation method, and (iii) a sedimentation method. Forty-eight naturally infected field faecal samples, comprising both positive and negative samples for liver and rumen flukes were each processed in duplicate by all methods, and diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were calculated using a composite reference standard, whereby samples were classified as positive if any of the three methods detected fluke eggs. The analytical performance of OvaCyte™ was then further assessed for reproducibility and precision using pooled bovine faecal samples. Results Out of the field samples, 37 tested positives for rumen flukes and 31 for liver flukes. OvaCyte™ achieved the highest sensitivity for both parasites (rumen flukes, 0.95; liver fluke, 0.90) with high specificity. Quantitatively, OvaCyte™ detected significantly higher egg counts than both conventional methods for liver and rumen flukes ( p < 0.001). No significant difference was observed between the Reference Laboratory Method and sedimentation for liver fluke, whilst a small but significant difference was detected for rumen fluke ( p = 0.0046). Conclusion The findings suggest that OvaCyte™ Fluke Plus provides improved quantitative recovery and higher analytical sensitivity compared with conventional coprological methods, particularly for low-intensity liver fluke infections. The method may also have utility for epidemiological surveillance and flukicide efficacy studies, although interpretation should be considered in the context of the study design and the use of a composite reference standard.
Source: Frontiers in Veterinary Science
Language: English
Subfield: Small Animals
Field: Veterinary
Domain: Health Sciences
Open Access status: gold
Estimated APC paid: $3,801
OpenAlex ID: W7225113249