ArticleMalaria journal2025
Estimating the hole surface area of insecticide-treated nets using image analysis, manual hole counting and exact hole measurements.
Article in Malaria journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe physical integrity of insecticidal-treated nets (ITNs) is important for creating a barrier against host-seeking mosquitoes and, therefore, influences people's perception of the net's effectiveness and their willingness to use it. Monitoring the physical integrity of ITNs over time provides information for replenishment schedules and purchasing decisions. Currently, the assessment of physical integrity of ITNs is conducted by manually counting holes and estimating their size to class the net as functional or not. This approach is laborious to routinely conduct during field surveys of ITNs. Automated image analysis may provide a rapid assessment of the physical integrity of ITNs but it is not known if the images can capture sufficient information. As a first step, this study aimed to assess the agreement between estimated hole surface areas derived from (1) manually segmented images, (2) manual hole counting compared to (3) ground truth obtained by calibrated close-up shots of individual holes.
methodsThe physical integrity of 75 ITNs purposely selected from an ongoing study was assessed by manual hole counting, image analysis and ground truth. For the image analysis, a graphical user interface was developed and used for the segmentation of holes visible in photographs taken from each side of the net. The hole surface area was then computed from this data. The agreement between the estimates from image analysis and manual hole counting was compared to the ground truth using the Bland-Altman method.
resultsThere was substantial agreement between the manually segmented image analysis estimates and the ground truth hole surface areas. The overall bias was small, with a mean ratio of the hole surface area from image analysis to the ground truth of 0.70, and the 95% limits of agreement ranging from 0.35 to 1.38. Manual hole counting underestimated the hole surface area compared to the ground truth, particularly among nets with holes above 10 cm in diameter.
conclusionImages coupled with manual segmentation contain sufficient information to calculate hole surface area. This lays the groundwork for incorporating automatic hole detection, and then assessing whether this method will offer a fast and objective method for routine assessment of physical integrity of ITNs. While the WHO method underestimated the hole surface area, it remains useful in classifying nets as either serviceable or too torn because the cut-off is specific to this method.
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.