SynthesisPLoS neglected tropical diseases2026
Accuracy of AI-assisted diagnostic tools for Schistosoma haematobium: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic accuracy of rapid and point-of-care tests forFrontiers in parasitology · 2026Pooled it
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
backgroundUrogenital schistosomiasis caused by Schistosoma haematobium remains endemic in sub-Saharan Africa. Diagnosis traditionally relies on urine microscopy to detect parasite eggs; however, its sensitivity declines in low-intensity infections. Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted image analysis offers a promising approach to automate egg detection and enhance diagnostic accuracy, but its performance compared with standard microscopy is not well established.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines and checklist. Studies evaluating AI-assisted detection of S. haematobium compared with microscopy and/or molecular reference standards, published up to August 2025, were identified through searches in PubMed/MEDLINE, HINARI, Epistemonikos, Science Direct, Google Scholar and grey literature sources. Eligible studies were selected based on pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quality of included studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Heterogeneity among studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Q test and I² statistic. Data was analyzed using STATA version 14.1 and Review Manager version 5.4.1.
resultsTen studies (15 datasets, 5,564 urine samples) conducted in sub-Saharan Africa met the inclusion criteria. AI-assisted tools demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy. The pooled sensitivity was 88% (95%CI 83%-91%) and pooled specificity was 89% (95% CI 83%-93%). The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 54.00 (95% CI 30.41-95.88), indicating strong discrimination between infected and uninfected cases. The SROC curve yielded an AUC of 0.94 (95% CI 0.92-0.96), reflecting excellent overall accuracy. Heterogeneity across studies was high (I² = 100%), suggesting results varied by the specific AI platform and study context.
conclusionAI-assisted microscopic diagnosis of S. haematobium achieved very good in this meta-analysis. These automated tools, whether smartphone-based or bench-top systems, showed promise for detecting infections and could help screen populations in endemic areas. With further validation in field settings and comparison to highly sensitive reference tests, AI diagnostic technology may become a valuable tool to improve case detection and support schistosomiasis control and elimination efforts.
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.