{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04487179487179487, 'fraction_numerical': 0.020833333333333332, 'mean_word_length': 5.201986754966887, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Analysis of feline, canine and equine hemograms using the QBC VetAutoread.

Blood samples form 120 consecutive clinical cases (40 cats, 40 dogs and 40 horses) were analyzed on the QBC VetAutoread analyzer and the results compared with those obtained by a Baker 9000 electronic resistance cell counter and a 100-cell manual differential leukocyte (WBC) count. Packed cell volume (PCV), hemoglobin (Hb) concentration, mean cell hemoglobin concentration (MCHC), and platelet, total WBC, granulocytes, and lymphocyte plus monocyte (L+M) counts were determined. Indistinct separation of red blood cell and granulocytes layers on the QBC VetAutoread was observed in samples from five cats (12.5%), two dogs (5%), and one horse. Significantly different (P=0.002) median values for the two methods were obtained for PCV, Hb concentration, MCHC and platelet count in cats; PCV, MCHC, WBC, count and granulocytes count in dogs; and PCV, Hb concentration, MCHC and WBC, granulocytes and platelet counts in horses. Results from the QBC VetAutoread should not be interpreted using reference ranges established using other equipment. Results were abnormal on a limited number of samples; however, when correlation coefficients were low, marked discrepancy existed between values within as well as outside of reference ranges. Spearman rank correlation coefficients were excellent (r=0.93) for PCV and Hb concentration in dogs, and Hb concentration and WBC count in horses. Correlation was good (r=0.80-0.92) for PCV and Hb concentration in cats, WBC count in dogs, and PCV, granulocytes count and platelet count in horses. For remaining parameters, correlation was fair to poor (r=0.79). Acceptable correlations (r>0.80) were achieved between the two test systems for all equine values except MCHC and L+M count, but only for PCV and HB concentration in feline and canine blood samples.