ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2025
Diagnosis of
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Head-to-head evaluation of a commercial real-time PCR assay targeting plasmodial species causing human malaria against a composite reference standard.European journal of microbiology & immunology · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-powered microscopy: Transforming the landscape of parasitology.Journal of microscopy · 2026Review
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Utilizing Artificial Intelligence for Malaria Diagnostic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Infectious disease reports · 2026Review
- Computer Viewing Model for Classification of Erythrocytes Infected withMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
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
Diagnosing malaria using standard techniques is time-consuming. With limited staffing in many laboratories, this may lead to delays in reporting. Innovative technologies are changing the diagnostic landscape and may help alleviate staffing shortages. The miLab MAL, an automated artificial intelligence-driven instrument was compared with standard microscopy at LabCorp reference laboratories. Four hundred eight samples submitted for parasitic examination were prepared with thick and thin smears and Noul's malaria platform miLab MAL, and evaluated for positivity, negativity, percent positivity, and species identification. Of 408 samples, 399 samples were manually negative, while 397 were negative by miLab MAL. Two samples initially classified as negative manually were found positive by miLab MAL. In all nine cases,
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.