Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38394298›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2024

Validation of artificial intelligence-based digital microscopy for automated detection of Schistosoma haematobium eggs in urine in Gabon.

Brice Meulah, Prosper Oyibo, Pytsje T Hoekstra, Paul Alvyn Nguema Moure, Moustapha Nzamba Maloum, Romeo Aime Laclong-Lontchi, Yabo Josiane Honkpehedji, Michel Bengtson, Cornelis Hokke, Paul L A M Corstjens and 4 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04505046 (Validation of INSPiRED Innovative Smart Diagnostic Devices for the Detection of Plasmodium Falciparum, Schistosoma Haematobium and Necator Americanus at CERMEL, Gabon.), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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.

NCT04505046 unknown statusnot on this map

Validation of INSPiRED Innovative Smart Diagnostic Devices for the Detection of Plasmodium Falciparum, Schistosoma Haematobium and Necator Americanus at CERMEL, Gabon.

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorCentre de Recherche Médicale de LambarénéRan2020 to 2023Enrolled460ConditionsTesting, Performance, Specificity, Sensitivity
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

14 authors.

Brice MeulahLeiden University Center for Infectious Diseases (LUCID), Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2068-1563
Prosper OyiboMechanical, Maritime and Material Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Pytsje T HoekstraLeiden University Center for Infectious Diseases (LUCID), Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Paul Alvyn Nguema MoureCentre de Recherches Médicales des Lambaréné, CERMEL, Lambaréné, Gabon.
Moustapha Nzamba MaloumCentre de Recherches Médicales des Lambaréné, CERMEL, Lambaréné, Gabon.
Romeo Aime Laclong-LontchiCentre de Recherches Médicales des Lambaréné, CERMEL, Lambaréné, Gabon.
Yabo Josiane HonkpehedjiLeiden University Center for Infectious Diseases (LUCID), Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Michel BengtsonLeiden University Center for Infectious Diseases (LUCID), Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Cornelis HokkeLeiden University Center for Infectious Diseases (LUCID), Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Paul L A M CorstjensDepartment of Cell and Chemical Biology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Temitope AgbanaMechanical, Maritime and Material Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Jan Carel DiehlIndustrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Ayola Akim AdegnikaLeiden University Center for Infectious Diseases (LUCID), Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Lisette van LieshoutLeiden University Center for Infectious Diseases (LUCID), Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Funding

NWO-WOTRO Science for Global Development program
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSchistosomiasis is a significant public health concern, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. Conventional microscopy is the standard diagnostic method in resource-limited settings, but with limitations, such as the need for expert microscopists. An automated digital microscope with artificial intelligence (Schistoscope), offers a potential solution. This field study aimed to validate the diagnostic performance of the Schistoscope for detecting and quantifying Schistosoma haematobium eggs in urine compared to conventional microscopy and to a composite reference standard (CRS) consisting of real-time PCR and the up-converting particle (UCP) lateral flow (LF) test for the detection of schistosome circulating anodic antigen (CAA).

methodsBased on a non-inferiority concept, the Schistoscope was evaluated in two parts: study A, consisting of 339 freshly collected urine samples and study B, consisting of 798 fresh urine samples that were also banked as slides for analysis with the Schistoscope. In both studies, the Schistoscope, conventional microscopy, real-time PCR and UCP-LF CAA were performed and samples with all the diagnostic test results were included in the analysis. All diagnostic procedures were performed in a laboratory located in a rural area of Gabon, endemic for S. haematobium.

resultsIn study A and B, the Schistoscope demonstrated a sensitivity of 83.1% and 96.3% compared to conventional microscopy, and 62.9% and 78.0% compared to the CRS. The sensitivity of conventional microscopy in study A and B compared to the CRS was 61.9% and 75.2%, respectively, comparable to the Schistoscope. The specificity of the Schistoscope in study A (78.8%) was significantly lower than that of conventional microscopy (96.4%) based on the CRS but comparable in study B (90.9% and 98.0%, respectively).

conclusionOverall, the performance of the Schistoscope was non-inferior to conventional microscopy with a comparable sensitivity, although the specificity varied. The Schistoscope shows promising diagnostic accuracy, particularly for samples with moderate to higher infection intensities as well as for banked sample slides, highlighting the potential for retrospective analysis in resource-limited settings.

trial registrationNCT04505046 ClinicalTrials.gov.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceMicroscopySchistosoma haematobiumSchistosomiasis haematobiaGabonHumansRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID38394298
PMCPMC10917302

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.