Evaluation of Malaria Diagnoses Using a Handheld Light Microscope in a Community-Based Setting in Rural Côte d'Ivoire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Portable microscopy may facilitate quality diagnostic care in resource-constrained settings. We compared a handheld light microscope (Newton Nm1) with a mobile phone attachment to conventional light microscopy for the detection of Plasmodium falciparum in a cross-sectional study in rural Côte d'Ivoire. Single Giemsa-stained thick blood film from 223 individuals were prepared and read by local laboratory technicians on both microscopes under 1,000× magnification with oil. Of the 223 samples, 162 (72.6%) were P. falciparum positive, and the overall mean parasite count was 1,392/μL of blood. Sensitivity and specificity of the handheld microscope was 80.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 73.1-85.9%) and 100.0% (95% CI: 92.6-100.0%), respectively, with a positive and negative predictive value of 100.0% (95% CI: 96.4-100.0%) and 65.6% (95% CI: 54.9-74.9%), respectively. If sensitivity can be improved, handheld light microscopy may become a valuable public health tool for P. falciparum diagnosis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".