ArticleJournal of biomedical optics2019
Portable bright-field, fluorescence, and cross-polarized microscope toward point-of-care imaging diagnostics.
Article in Journal of biomedical optics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Targeting cancer-associated fibroblasts for real-time intraoperative tumor identification with a spray-on fluorescent probe.Science advances · 2025Article
- Technologies for the point-of-care diagnosis of malaria: a scoping review.Infectious diseases of poverty · 2025Article
- Fluorescent labeling of asbestos fiber for enhanced asbestos detection under fluorescence microscopy.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- Exploring Label-Free Imaging Techniques with Copper Sulfide Microspheres for Observing Breast Cancer Cells.ACS omega · 2024Article
- Adaptive Design of Fluorescence Imaging Systems for Custom Resolution, Fields of View, and Geometries.BME frontiers · 2023Article
- Digital microscopy and artificial intelligence could profoundly contribute to malaria diagnosis in elimination settings.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2022Article
- Smartphone-based imaging systems for medical applications: a critical review.Journal of biomedical optics · 2021Review
- Frugal filtering optical lenses for point-of-care diagnostics.Biomedical optics express · 2020Article
- Quantitative absorption imaging of red blood cells to determine physical and mechanical properties.RSC advances · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Emerging technologies are enabling the feasibility of new types of point-of-care diagnostic devices. A portable, multimodal microscopy platform intended for use in remote diagnostic applications is presented. Use of such a system could bring high-quality microscopy to field use for diseases such as malaria, allowing better diagnostic and surveillance information to be gathered. The microscope was designed using off-the-shelf components and a manual filter selection to generate bright-field, fluorescent, and cross-polarized images of samples mounted to microscopy slides. Design parameters for the system are discussed, and characterization is performed using standardized imaging targets, multimodal phantoms, and blood smears simulating those used in malaria diagnosis. The microscope is shown to be able to image below element 9-3 of a 1951 U.S. Air Force target, indicating that the system is capable of resolving features < 775 nm. Morphological indicators of Plasmodium falciparum can be visualized in images from each modality and combined into high-contrast composite images. To optimize parasitic feature contrast across all three imaging modes, several different staining techniques were compared, with results indicating that use of a single nucleic acid binding fluorophore is preferable.
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.