ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2025
Multi-contrast machine learning improves schistosomiasis diagnostic performance.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Accuracy of AI-assisted diagnostic tools for Schistosoma haematobium: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Pooled it
- A multi-site laboratory evaluation of the MEDSCAN application for automated POC-CCA interpretation.Frontiers in parasitology · 2026Article
- NTDscope: A multi-contrast portable microscope for disease diagnosis.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Portable digital microscopy with point-of-care testing for low-cost and efficient prevalence surveys for schistosomiasis control.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Schistosomiasis currently affects over 250 million people and remains a public health burden despite ongoing global control efforts. Conventional microscopy is a practical tool for diagnosis and screening of Schistosoma haematobium, but identification of eggs requires a skilled microscopist. Here we present a machine learning (ML)-based strategy for automated detection of S. haematobium that combines two imaging contrasts, brightfield (BF) and darkfield (DF), to improve diagnostic performance. We collected BF and DF images of urine samples, many of them containing S. haematobium eggs, during two different field studies in Côte d'Ivoire using a mobile phone-based microscope, the SchistoScope. We then trained separate egg-detection ML models and compared the patient-level performance of BF and DF models alone to combinations of BF and DF models, using annotations from trained microscopists as the gold standard. We found that models trained on DF images, and almost all BF and DF combinations, performed significantly better than models trained on BF images only. When models were trained on images from the first field study (n = 349 patients, 748 images of each contrast), patient-level classification performance on patient images from the second study (n = 375 patients, 752 images of each contrast) met the WHO Diagnostic Target Product Profile (TPP) sensitivity and specificity for the monitoring and evaluation use case (sensitivity for all models and combinations was >75% when evaluated at a confidence score threshold that resulted in specificity >96.5%). When we used images from both field studies for the training set, performance of the models was improved. Overall, this work shows that the use of DF and BF increases the performance of ML models on images from devices with low-cost optics, while retaining the portability, power, and time-to-results of the WHO's diagnostic TPP. DF requires no additional sample preparation and does not increase the complexity of the imaging system. It thus offers a practical means to improve performance of automated diagnostics for S. haematobium as well as other microscopy-based diagnostics.
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.