ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2026
Diagnosing helminth infections in a large reference laboratory in the United States: a 6-month pre- and post-implementation analysis of AI-augmented screening of concentrated fecal wet mounts.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Helminth infections are uncommon in the United States, yet accurate detection remains critical. Conventional ova-and-parasite examinations are labor-intensive and prone to error in low-prevalence settings. We evaluated the impact of implementing an artificial intelligence (AI)-based wet mount screening platform (WM-AI) in a high-volume reference laboratory. Detection rates, turnaround times, and specimen characteristics were compared across two 6-month periods before and after WM-AI implementation. Post-implementation, helminth detection increased from 29 to 104 patients, and client-level positivity rose from 4.5% to 12.3% (
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.