The Design and Evaluation of a Mobile System for Rapid Diagnostic Test Interpretation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) provide point-of-care medical screening without the need for expensive laboratory equipment. RDTs are theoretically straightforward to use, yet their analog colorimetric output leaves room for diagnostic uncertainty and error. Furthermore, RDT results within a community are kept isolated unless they are aggregated by healthcare workers, limiting the potential that RDTs can have in supporting public health efforts. In light of these issues, we present a system called RDTScan for detecting and interpreting lateral flow RDTs with a smartphone. RDTScan provides real-time guidance for clear RDT image capture and automatic interpretation for accurate diagnostic decisions. RDTScan is structured to be quickly configurable to new RDT designs by requiring only a template image and some metadata about how the RDT is supposed to be read, making it easier to extend than a data-driven approach. Through a controlled lab study, we demonstrate that RDTScan's limit-of-detection can match, and even exceed, the performance of expert readers who are interpreting the physical RDTs themselves. We then present two field evaluations of smartphone apps built on the RDTScan system: (1) at-home influenza testing in Australia and (2) malaria testing by community healthcare workers in Kenya. RDTScan achieved 97.5% and 96.3% accuracy compared to RDT interpretation by experts in the Australia Flu Study and the Kenya Malaria Study, respectively.
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".