ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2014
Optimization of a cell counting algorithm for mobile point-of-care testing platforms.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In a point-of-care (POC) setting, it is critically important to reliably count the number of specific cells in a blood sample. Software-based cell counting, which is far faster than manual counting, while much cheaper than hardware-based counting, has emerged as an attractive solution potentially applicable to mobile POC testing. However, the existing software-based algorithm based on the normalized cross-correlation (NCC) method is too time- and, thus, energy-consuming to be deployed for battery-powered mobile POC testing platforms. In this paper, we identify inefficiencies in the NCC-based algorithm and propose two synergistic optimization techniques that can considerably reduce the runtime and, thus, energy consumption of the original algorithm with negligible impact on counting accuracy. We demonstrate that an AndroidTM smart phone running the optimized algorithm consumes 11.5× less runtime than the original algorithm.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.