AI-Supported Digital Microscopy Diagnostics in Primary Health Care Laboratories: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Digital microscopy combined with artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being implemented in health care, predominantly in advanced laboratory settings. However, AI-supported digital microscopy could be especially advantageous in primary health care settings, since such methods could improve access to diagnostics via automation and lead to a decreased need for experts on site. To our knowledge, no scoping or systematic review had been published on the use of AI-supported digital microscopy within primary health care laboratories when this scoping review was initiated. A scoping review can guide future research by providing insights to help navigate the challenges of implementing these novel methods in primary health care laboratories. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to map peer-reviewed studies on AI-supported digital microscopy in primary health care laboratories to generate an overview of the subject. METHODS: A systematic search of the databases PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and IEEE will be conducted. Only peer-reviewed articles in English will be considered, and no limit on publication year will be applied. The concept inclusion criteria in the scoping review include studies that have applied AI-supported digital microscopy with the aim of achieving a diagnosis on the subject level. In addition, the studies must have been performed in the context of primary health care laboratories, as defined by the criteria of not having a pathologist on site and using simple sample preparations. The study selection and data extraction will be performed by 2 independent researchers, and in the case of disagreements, a third researcher will be involved. The results will be presented in a table developed by the researchers, including information on investigated diseases, sample collection, preparation and digitization, AI model used, and results. Furthermore, the results will be described narratively to provide an overview of the studies included. The proposed methodology is in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. RESULTS: The scoping review was initiated in January 2023, and a protocol was published in the Open Science Framework in January 2024. The protocol was completed in March 2024, and the systematic search will be performed after the protocol has been peer reviewed. The scoping review is expected to be finalized by the end of 2024. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic review of studies on AI-supported digital microscopy in primary health care laboratories is anticipated to identify the diseases where these novel methods could be advantageous, along with the shared challenges encountered and approaches taken to address them. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/58149.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,101 | 0,117 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,013 | 0,015 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,018 | 0,014 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,010 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,077 | 0,014 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».