ArticleMedical journal, Armed Forces India
Trials and tribulations: Developing an artificial intelligence for screening malaria parasite from peripheral blood smears.
Article in Medical journal, Armed Forces India. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reinventing malaria control: hierarchical intervention strategies for African settings based on the microbiota-barrier-innate immunity axis.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Infectious disease challenges in the post-COVID era.Medical journal, Armed Forces IndiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Detection of malaria parasite from blood smears remains the gold standard for confirmation of diagnosis. Screening blood smears for malaria parasite has a sensitivity of 75 %, and requires intensive training of the laboratory technician. In the present study, we have attempted to develop an artificial intelligence to automate the process of malaria parasite detection. Methods: We acquired 352 images of Leishman-Giemsa-stained peripheral blood smears, containing either normal red blood cells (RBCs) or parasitised RBCs. With a trial and error approach, we developed five deep learning models: (A) Naive deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) for trophozoites, (B) Modified Inception V3 pretrained neural network (C) Combination of model A and B, (D) Segmentation of cells from the images through Watershed Transform and naive tri-class DCNN (normal RBCs, parasitised RBCs, WBC/platelets), and (E) A naive DCNN model to detect ring forms. The images were randomly split into training and test sets and training was imparted on all the models. After completion of training, performance of each model was assessed on the test set. Results: Overall, the best combination of sensitivity and specificity was seen in model D (85 % and 94 %, respectively) in detecting parasites; in addition to trophozoites, model D could also detect ring forms. The performance of model A, B & C suffered from lack of either sensitivity or specificity. Conclusion: The present study represents the first step towards development of a complete module for screening malaria parasites from automated microphotography/whole slide images.
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.