Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39298384›Full record

ReviewPLOS digital health2024

Low-cost and convenient screening of disease using analysis of physical measurements and recordings.

Jay Chandra, Raymond Lin, Devin Kancherla, Sophia Scott, Daniel Sul, Daniela Andrade, Sammer Marzouk, Jay M Iyer, William Wasswa, Cleva Villanueva and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PLOS digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors.

Jay ChandraHarvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1674-0180
Raymond LinGlobal Alliance for Medical Innovation, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-0647-9380
Devin KancherlaGlobal Alliance for Medical Innovation, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-2324-0201
Sophia ScottGlobal Alliance for Medical Innovation, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1219-9997
Daniel SulGlobal Alliance for Medical Innovation, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Daniela AndradeGlobal Alliance for Medical Innovation, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Sammer MarzoukGlobal Alliance for Medical Innovation, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Jay M IyerGlobal Alliance for Medical Innovation, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
William WasswaDepartment of Biomedical Sciences and Engineering, Mbarara University of Science and Technology, Mbarara, Uganda.
Cleva VillanuevaEscuela Superior de Medicina, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, México, D.F., México.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2694-5902
Leo Anthony CeliInstitute for Medical Engineering and Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6712-6626

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, there has been substantial work in low-cost medical diagnostics based on the physical manifestations of disease. This is due to advancements in data analysis techniques and classification algorithms and the increased availability of computing power through smart devices. Smartphones and their ability to interface with simple sensors such as inertial measurement units (IMUs), microphones, piezoelectric sensors, etc., or with convenient attachments such as lenses have revolutionized the ability collect medically relevant data easily. Even if the data has relatively low resolution or signal to noise ratio, newer algorithms have made it possible to identify disease with this data. Many low-cost diagnostic tools have been created in medical fields spanning from neurology to dermatology to obstetrics. These tools are particularly useful in low-resource areas where access to expensive diagnostic equipment may not be possible. The ultimate goal would be the creation of a "diagnostic toolkit" consisting of a smartphone and a set of sensors and attachments that can be used to screen for a wide set of diseases in a community healthcare setting. However, there are a few concerns that still need to be overcome in low-cost diagnostics: lack of incentives to bring these devices to market, algorithmic bias, "black box" nature of the algorithms, and data storage/transfer concerns.

Identifiers

PMID39298384
PMCPMC11412657

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.