ArticleMayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health2025
Artificial Intelligence Image-Diagnosis for Female Genital Schistosomiasis.
Article in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health, 2025. 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.
- AID-FGS: Artificial intelligence-enabled diagnosis of female genital schistosomiasis: Preliminary findings.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- AI supported diagnostic innovations for impact in global women's health.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To introduce a novel, artificial Intelligence (AI), deep learning-based application for automated diagnosis of female genital schistosomiasis (FGS), a disease estimated to affect around 56 million women and girls in sub-Saharan Africa. Patients and Methods: This study focused on cervical images collected from a high endemic FGS area in Cameroon, from August 1, 2020 to August 31, 2021. We applied the You Only Look Once deep learning model and employed a 5-fold cross-validation approach, accompanied by sensitivity analysis, to optimize model performance. Results: The model achieved a sensitivity of 0.96 (76/78) and an accuracy of 0.78 (97/125), demonstrating improved performance over an existing, non-AI-based, computerized image diagnostic method, which has a sensitivity of 0.94 (73/78) but an accuracy of 0.58 (73/125) on the same dataset. In addition, the AI model significantly reduced processing time, decreasing from 47 minutes to under 90 seconds for testing 250 images. Conclusion: This study highlights the potential of deep learning-based models for automated diagnosis for FGS while reducing the reliance on specialized clinical expertise. It also underscores the need for further work to address current limitations of such AI-based methods for FGS diagnosis.
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.