Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36092001›Full record

ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2022

Automatic recognition of parasitic products in stool examination using object detection approach.

Kaung Myat Naing, Siridech Boonsang, Santhad Chuwongin, Veerayuth Kittichai, Teerawat Tongloy, Samrerng Prommongkol, Paron Dekumyoy, Dorn Watthanakulpanich

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Validation of Vetscan ImagystParasites & vectors · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Kaung Myat NaingCenter of Industrial Robot and Automation (CiRA), College of Advanced Manufacturing Innovation, King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok, Thailand.
Siridech BoonsangDepartment of Electrical Engineering, School of Engineering, King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok, Thailand.
Santhad ChuwonginCenter of Industrial Robot and Automation (CiRA), College of Advanced Manufacturing Innovation, King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok, Thailand.
Veerayuth KittichaiFaculty of Medicine, King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok, Thailand.
Teerawat TongloyCenter of Industrial Robot and Automation (CiRA), College of Advanced Manufacturing Innovation, King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok, Thailand.
Samrerng PrommongkolMahidol Bangkok School of Tropical Medicine, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Paron DekumyoyDepartment of Helminthology, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Dorn WatthanakulpanichDepartment of Helminthology, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Object detection is a new artificial intelligence approach to morphological recognition and labeling parasitic pathogens. Due to the lack of equipment and trained personnel, artificial intelligence innovation for searching various parasitic products in stool examination will enable patients in remote areas of undeveloped countries to access diagnostic services. Because object detection is a developing approach that has been tested for its effectiveness in detecting intestinal parasitic objects such as protozoan cysts and helminthic eggs, it is suitable for use in rural areas where many factors supporting laboratory testing are still lacking. Based on the literatures, the YOLOv4-Tiny produces faster results and uses less memory with the support of low-end GPU devices. In comparison to the YOLOv3 and YOLOv3-Tiny models, this study aimed to propose an automated object detection approach, specifically the YOLOv4-Tiny model, for automatic recognition of intestinal parasitic products in stools. Methods: To identify protozoan cysts and helminthic eggs in human feces, the three YOLO approaches; YOLOv4-Tiny, YOLOv3, and YOLOv3-Tiny, were trained to recognize 34 intestinal parasitic classes using training of image dataset. Feces were processed using a modified direct smear method adapted from the simple direct smear and the modified Kato-Katz methods. The image dataset was collected from intestinal parasitic objects discovered during stool examination and the three YOLO models were trained to recognize the image datasets. Results: The non-maximum suppression technique and the threshold level were used to analyze the test dataset, yielding results of 96.25% precision and 95.08% sensitivity for YOLOv4-Tiny. Additionally, the YOLOv4-Tiny model had the best AUPRC performance of the three YOLO models, with a score of 0.963. Conclusion: This study, to our knowledge, was the first to detect protozoan cysts and helminthic eggs in the 34 classes of intestinal parasitic objects in human stools.

Indexed as

Object detection approachParasite image datasetParasite products recognitionParasitic productsYOLO

Identifiers

PMID36092001
PMCPMC9455271

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.