AI-Supported Digital Microscopy Diagnostics in Primary Health Care Laboratories: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.101 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.077 | 0.014 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".