Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 25 references

Towards Field-Ready AI-based Malaria Diagnosis: A Continual Learning Approach

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A continual learning approach using confidence-based replay lets a YOLO malaria detector adapt to new clinical sites without forgetting earlier ones, improving cross-site generalization.

desk verdict First application of CL to malaria CAD, with a clean multi-site setup, but the missing no-CL sequential fine-tuning control leaves the central claim under-supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.23648 v1 pith:ASFLY4M7 submitted 2025-07-31 eess.IV cs.CV

Louise Guillon , Soheib Biga , Yendoube E. Kantchire , Mouhamadou Lamine Sane , Grégoire Pasquier , Kossi Yakpa , Stéphane E. Sossou , Marc Thellier
show 4 more authors
Laurent Bonnardot Laurence Lachaud Renaud Piarroux Ameyo M. Dorkenoo
This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CV
keywords malariadiagnosiscontinuallearningobjectdetectionYOLOthinbloodsmeardomainshiftrehearsalconfidencereplay
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Malaria diagnosis from thin blood smear images works well within one clinic but degrades across sites because staining, equipment, and operators shift. This paper asks whether continual learning can make a YOLO-based detector robust to those shifts without retraining on all data at once. It sets up a domain-incremental stream of five real clinical sites and compares four continual learning methods against a no-adaptation baseline and an incremental joint-training upper bound. The authors find that rehearsal-based methods, especially replayed images selected by low YOLO confidence, significantly improve cross-site accuracy and sensitivity, reaching 98.53% red-blood-cell-level accuracy and the best backward transfer. The practical consequence is that a diagnostic tool could be updated site by site, in the field, rather than requiring a large joint retraining effort.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a domain-incremental continual learning loop wrapped around a dual-YOLO detector: one YOLOv5 model detects all red blood cells and a second detects infected ones, and their detections are merged to label an image positive if any RBC is infected. At each new-site task, the model is trained on the new data plus a memory buffer of replayed images from previous sites; confidence replay fills that buffer with up to 125 images per site whose YOLO detections had the lowest confidence, motivated by the idea that uncertain examples carry the most information for retaining old domains. Performance is tracked with a task-to-task performance matrix and average performance, backward transfer, and forward transfer metrics. The confidence-based replay is what the paper credits for stable accuracy, high specificity, and positive backward transfer across the five sites.

What would settle it

Run the same confidence-replay and random-replay training on the same five datasets but with the site order permuted (for example, presenting the small fifth site first); if confidence replay stops beating random replay or the incremental joint-training upper bound in average accuracy, the central claim about its superiority would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that applying continual learning, and in particular rehearsal with confidence-based sample selection, makes a YOLO-based malaria detector generalize across acquisition sites without catastrophic forgetting. In a fixed task stream of five sites (one public dataset and four routine clinical collections), the model trained sequentially with confidence replay achieves the highest mean RBC-level accuracy (98.53%) and specificity (99.26%), the best backward transfer (0.018, i.e., accuracy on earlier tasks improves rather than degrades), and the best image-level accuracy (81.95%), even surpassing the incremental joint-training upper bound at image level. Regularization-based methods (EWC and LWF) perform markedly worse, and a baseline with no adaptation loses sensitivity sharply from task 1 to task 2. The authors interpret this as evidence that continual learning is a practical route to field-ready malaria CAD.

Load-bearing premise

The results assume that the fixed order of the five sites and their very unequal sizes—especially the final site with 16 positive training images and 6 positive test images—are representative of how sites arrive in real deployment, since the paper does not test what happens when that order or composition changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A field-ready malaria CAD tool could be deployed at a new hospital and updated with that site's routine images alone, without gathering all previous sites' data for joint retraining.
  • Rehearsal methods keep earlier-site performance intact: confidence replay's positive backward transfer (0.018) means the model gets slightly better on old tasks after learning new ones, not worse.
  • Confidence replay reaches 81.95% average image-level accuracy, above the 78.51% of incremental joint training, suggesting that a curated small buffer can beat storing full data.
  • Regularization-based continual learning (EWC, LWF) underperforms replay on this data, so memory-based approaches are the more promising family for malaria CAD.
  • The no-adaptation baseline's sensitivity drops from near 80% to below 40% at RBC level on the second site, confirming that cross-site generalization is the binding constraint.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the paper fixes the task order D1 to D5 and does not test permutations, the reported advantage of confidence replay may be order-dependent; a deployment would need to choose and test the order in which sites are onboarded.
  • Selecting replay samples by low-confidence detections is a general principle that could transfer to other detection-based diagnostics (e.g., tuberculosis or schistosomiasis microscopy), not just malaria; that would be a natural external test.
  • The smallest site has only 16 positive training and 6 positive test images, so image-level sensitivity on that site is statistically fragile; a validation set with more positive images could change which method looks best at image level.
  • If confidence replay holds up, it reduces the data-sharing burden in clinical partnerships: only a small buffer of low-confidence images, rather than full datasets, needs to be retained across sites.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes using continual learning (CL) for domain-incremental malaria diagnosis from thin blood smears, where each task is a different clinical site. A YOLOv5 detector is trained on five site datasets in sequence under four CL strategies: EWC, LwF, naive replay, and confidence-based replay. The authors compare these against a frozen baseline trained only on the first site and against incremental joint training, reporting RBC-level and image-level accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, plus backward/forward transfer. They conclude that CL, and rehearsal-based methods in particular, can significantly improve generalization, with confidence replay giving the best overall balance and even exceeding the joint-training upper bound at image level.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper would make a useful practical contribution: it would show that a malaria CAD system can be adapted to new sites without full joint retraining, using a much smaller memory footprint, and that confidence-based sample selection can outperform random replay. The study has real strengths: patient-level data splits, three-fold cross-validation, a multi-site clinical dataset with heterogeneous image quality and class imbalance, and evaluation at both RBC and image levels with BWT/FWT metrics. The rehearsal buffer design and the comparison of four CL methods on a clinically relevant object-detection task are also valuable. However, the causal attribution to continual learning is currently under-supported, because the only non-CL comparators are a never-adapted baseline and an upper-bound joint-training model; a sequential fine-tuning control is missing. In addition, the word 'significantly' is used without any statistical test or confidence interval. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's main conclusion, so the significance is conditional on additional experiments and analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, 'Reference models' and Section 4, Table 2] The experimental design lacks a sequential fine-tuning (no-CL) control. Baseline is trained only on D1 and never sees D2-D5, while every CL method is also trained on those later tasks. The large RBC-level sensitivity gain of all adapting methods over Baseline (e.g., 57.24 for Baseline vs 72.02-84.32 for CL methods) could therefore be due simply to exposure to more data, not to any continual-learning mechanism. Adding a control that fine-tunes on each new site in sequence without replay or regularization is necessary to support the abstract's claim that 'CL, and rehearsal-based methods in particular, can significantly improve performance.' Without this control, the reported improvements cannot be attributed to continual learning.
  2. [Abstract and Section 4, Table 2] The word 'significantly' is used repeatedly (abstract, Section 4, and the YOLOv5 vs v8/v11 comparison) but no significance tests, confidence intervals, or paired comparisons are reported. The key comparison between Replay conf and Replay naive shows RBC accuracy 98.53 vs 98.38 and image accuracy 81.95 vs 74.50, but with only three folds and, for T5, only 6 positive test images, these differences may be within noise. I recommend reporting paired tests across folds, or better, patient-level bootstrapped confidence intervals, for the main metrics and for the BWT/FWT values.
  3. [Section 5, first paragraph] The authors list task-order sensitivity as future work, but the fixed order D1 to D5 and the very small T5 set (16 positive training images, 6 positive test images) are load-bearing for the central claim. In domain-incremental CL, results can depend strongly on task order and on the composition of small sites. I recommend at least one additional experiment with a reversed or shuffled task order, or a clear statement that the claimed field-readiness is conditional on the observed order and site composition. If the advantage of Replay conf over Replay naive and over joint training disappears under order permutation, the main conclusion would need to be substantially weakened.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, 'Experimental Design'] There are several typos that should be corrected: 'choosed' should be 'chosen', and the datasets paragraph contains 'Plamosdium' instead of 'Plasmodium'.
  2. [Section 3, 'Datasets' and Table 1] For D5, only 6 positive test images are available; this should be explicitly acknowledged in the results discussion, and the reported standard deviations for any metric involving T5 should be interpreted with this in mind.
  3. [Figure 2 and Figure 3 captions] The notation is inconsistent: Figure 2 says each value represents P1,i, while Figure 3 says Pi,i except for baseline which is P1,i. Clarify the indices so that the reader can tell which performance matrix entry is plotted for each evolution curve.
  4. [Section 4, Table 2] The BWT/FWT values are computed on accuracy, but the clinical emphasis is on sensitivity and specificity; reporting BWT/FWT for sensitivity as well (or at least discussing it) would better match the paper's stated clinical priorities.
  5. [Section 5, first paragraph] The claim that confidence-based selection outperforms the '200 random samples' approach from prior work [5] is not directly tested in the experiments; either add a comparison with that specific setting or phrase the sentence as a suggestion rather than a demonstrated result.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No material circularity: the central CL comparison is empirical and self-contained, with only a non-load-bearing self-citation for the base architecture and prior context.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is empirical rather than definitional. The central claims are supported by Table 2 and Figures 2-3, which report accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, backward transfer, and forward transfer computed from held-out test sets with 3-fold cross-validation and patient-level leakage prevention. Equations (1)-(3) define average performance, BWT, and FWT in the standard way; none of these quantities is constructed from fitted parameters or from the quantities they are claimed to predict. The regularization hyperparameters for EWC and LWF are grid-searched on validation data, and the reported test metrics are not mathematically forced by those choices. The only self-citation with any role in the setup is reference [5], which is used to justify the two-model YOLO architecture (one detector for all RBCs, one for infected RBCs) and to provide the earlier '200 random samples' generalization result mentioned in the conclusion. However, neither of these uses defines or computes the continual-learning results: the CL methods are trained and evaluated on the paper's own multi-site data, and the comparison between confidence replay and random replay is an empirical contrast on the same folds. Confidence replay is explicitly inspired by an external method, UACL [21], and is not derived from the paper's own output. There is no self-definitional step, no fitted input renamed as a prediction, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz smuggled in via self-citation. The absence of a sequential-fine-tuning (no-CL) control is a legitimate threat to attributing observed gains specifically to the continual-learning mechanism rather than to additional training data, and the small sample sizes, especially for T5, limit statistical certainty; but that is a study-design and identification concern, not a circularity. The paper does not reduce its conclusions to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a set of hand-set hyperparameters (buffer size, positive ratio, lambdas, confidence selection rule) and on domain assumptions about the validity of image-level metrics and the representativeness of the task order. The confidence selection rule is particularly underspecified, which complicates replication and makes the comparison between replay variants hard to interpret without the authors' implementation.

free parameters (6)
  • EWC regularization lambda = 10
    Chosen by gridsearch over [0.5, 10, 1000]; controls the strength of the EWC penalty.
  • LwF regularization lambda = 1
    Chosen by gridsearch over [0.5, 1, 10]; controls distillation weight.
  • Memory buffer size cap per site = 125 images
    Hand-set cap on replay buffer size; directly affects rehearsal methods.
  • Buffer positive-image ratio = 80%
    Hand-set to counter class imbalance; influences replay distribution and results.
  • Small-site buffer cap = 50% of Dt
    Hand-set rule for sites with few images; affects buffer composition.
  • Confidence selection rule = unspecified
    The paper states examples with lowest confidence are selected, but does not specify the number or threshold, leaving a key implementation detail underspecified.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption RBC-level and image-level detection accuracy on thin blood smears is a valid proxy for clinical malaria diagnosis.
    Used throughout the evaluation (Section 4); if this mapping is wrong, the reported performance metrics do not reflect clinical utility.
  • domain assumption The fixed task order D1 to D5 reflects a realistic deployment sequence.
    Invoked in the experimental design (Section 3), but the paper itself notes in Section 5 that task order impact is not assessed.
  • domain assumption Expert microscopy labels on the in-house datasets are ground truth.
    Standard assumption in medical imaging; the authors do not report inter-annotator agreement or validation of the labels.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Field-Ready AI-based Malaria Diagnosis: A Continual Learning Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ASFLY4M7

@misc{pith2026250723648,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Field-Ready AI-based Malaria Diagnosis: A Continual Learning Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ASFLY4M7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23648}
}
read the original abstract

Malaria remains a major global health challenge, particularly in low-resource settings where access to expert microscopy may be limited. Deep learning-based computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) systems have been developed and demonstrate promising performance on thin blood smear images. However, their clinical deployment may be hindered by limited generalization across sites with varying conditions. Yet very few practical solutions have been proposed. In this work, we investigate continual learning (CL) as a strategy to enhance the robustness of malaria CAD models to domain shifts. We frame the problem as a domain-incremental learning scenario, where a YOLO-based object detector must adapt to new acquisition sites while retaining performance on previously seen domains. We evaluate four CL strategies, two rehearsal-based and two regularization-based methods, on real-life conditions thanks to a multi-site clinical dataset of thin blood smear images. Our results suggest that CL, and rehearsal-based methods in particular, can significantly improve performance. These findings highlight the potential of continual learning to support the development of deployable, field-ready CAD tools for malaria.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.23648 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Workflow overview. A. Tasks stream. The CL scenario includes fives tasks. Center-cropped images of the 5 sites are presented. B. Malaria diagnosis predic￾tion flow. A field of view image of a thin blood smear is passed to two yolov5 models to detect (1) all RBC and (2) only the infected RBC. The predictions are then merged to obtain the final predictions of negative and positive cells. Experimental Design. Training … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Performance during the tasks stream for YOLOv5, YOLOv8 and YOLOv11. Each value represents P1,i for either accuracy, sensitivity, or speci￾ficity at RBC level. The error bars correspond to the standard deviation over the three folds. 5 Conclusion In this work we compared four continual learning strategies for malaria computer￾aided-diagnosis based on YOLO. We confirmed that generalization remains a sig￾nificant chall… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Performance during the tasks stream. Each value represents Pi,i for either accuracy, sensitivity, or specificity at image and RBC levels, except for baseline which is P1,i. The error bars correspond to the standard deviation over the three folds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    World malaria report 2024, https://www.who.int/teams/ global-malaria-programme/reports/world-malaria-report-2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    CodaMal: Contrastive Domain Adaptation for Malaria Detection in Low-Cost Microscopes

    Dave, I.R., de Blegiers, T., Chen, C., Shah, M.: CodaMal: Contrastive Do- main Adaptation for Malaria Detection in Low-Cost Microscopes (Feb 2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.10478, arXiv:2402.10478 [cs] 10 L. Guillon et al

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.10478 2024

  3. [3]

    In: 2015 IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC)

    Delahunt, C.B., Mehanian, C., Hu, L., McGuire, S.K., Champlin, C.R., Horn- ing, M.P., et al.: Automated microscopy and machine learning for expert-level malaria field diagnosis. In: 2015 IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC). pp. 393–399 (Oct 2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/GHTC.2015.7344002

    work page arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    Microbiology Spectrum 0(0), e01440–23 (Jan 2024)

    Guemas, E., Routier, B., Ghelfenstein-Ferreira, T., Cordier, C., Hartuis, S., Mar- ion, B., et al.: Automatic patient-level recognition of four Plasmodium species on thin blood smear by a real-time detection transformer (RT-DETR) object detec- tion algorithm: a proof-of-concept and evaluation. Microbiology Spectrum 0(0), e01440–23 (Jan 2024). https://doi....

    doi:10.1128/spectrum.01440-23 2024

  5. [5]

    In: Applications of Medical Artificial Intelligence

    Guillon, L., Biga, S., Puyo, A., Pasquier, G., Foucher, V., Kantchire, Y.E., et al.: Assessing Generalization Capabilities of Malaria Diagnostic Models from Thin Blood Smears. In: Applications of Medical Artificial Intelligence. pp. 140–150. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031- 82007-6 14

    doi:10.1007/978-3-031- 2025

  6. [6]

    In: 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPR W)

    Hung, J., Carpenter, A.: Applying Faster R-CNN for Object Detec- tion on Malaria Images. In: 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPR W). pp. 808–813 (Jul 2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR W.2017.112

    doi:10.1109/cvpr 2017

  7. [7]

    https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.3908559

    Jocher, G., Ayush Chaurasia, Stoken, A., Borovec, J., NanoCode012, Yonghye Kwon, Kalen Michael, et al.: ultralytics/yolov5: v7.0 - YOLOv5 SOTA Realtime Instance Segmentation (Nov 2022). https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.3908559

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.3908559 2022

  8. [8]

    Journal of Sensor Networks and Data Commu- nications 4(3), 01–21 (Dec 2024)

    Kabore, K.K., Guel, D.: Addressing Challenges in Data Quality and Model Gen- eralization for Malaria Detection. Journal of Sensor Networks and Data Commu- nications 4(3), 01–21 (Dec 2024). https://doi.org/10.33140/JSNDC.04.03.09

    work page doi:10.33140/jsndc.04.03.09 2024

Show all 25 references
  1. [9]

    IEEE jour- nal of biomedical and health informatics 25(5), 1735–1746 (May 2021)

    Kassim, Y.M., Palaniappan, K., Yang, F., Poostchi, M., Palaniappan, N., Maude, R.J., et al.: Clustering-Based Dual Deep Learning Architecture for Detecting Red Blood Cells in Malaria Diagnostic Smears. IEEE jour- nal of biomedical and health informatics 25(5), 1735–1746 (May 2...

    2021

  2. [10]

    Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(13), 3521–3526 (Mar 2017)

    Kirkpatrick, J., Pascanu, R., Rabinowitz, N., Veness, J., Desjardins, G., Rusu, A.A., et al.: Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks. Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(13), 3521–3526 (Mar 2017). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1611835114

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    In: Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Interven- tion – MICCAI 2024

    Koch, V., Wagner, S.J., Kazeminia, S., Sancar, E., Hehr, M., Schnabel, J.A., et al.: DinoBloom: A Foundation Model for Generalizable Cell Embeddings in Hematology. In: Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Interven- tion – MICCAI 2024. pp. 520–530. Springer Nature Swit...

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    Informatics 9(4), 76 (Dec 2022)

    Krishnadas, P., Chadaga, K., Sampathila, N., Rao, S., S., S.K., Prabhu, S.: Clas- sification of Malaria Using Object Detection Models. Informatics 9(4), 76 (Dec 2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics9040076

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2312.17004, arXiv:2312.17004 [eess]

    Kumari, P., Chauhan, J., Bozorgpour, A., Huang, B., Azad, R., Mer- hof, D.: Continual Learning in Medical Image Analysis: A Comprehen- sive Review of Recent Advancements and Future Prospects (Oct 2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2312.17004, arXiv:2312.17004 [eess]

    2024 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 40(12), 2935–2947 (Dec 2018)

    Li, Z., Hoiem, D.: Learning without Forgetting. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 40(12), 2935–2947 (Dec 2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2017.2773081, conference Name: IEEE Transac- tions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence Improving ...

    2018

  7. [15]

    Patterns 4(9), 100806 (Sep 2023)

    Liu, R., Liu, T., Dan, T., Yang, S., Li, Y., Luo, B., et al.: AID- MAN: An AI-based object detection system for malaria diagnosis from smartphone thin-blood-smear images. Patterns 4(9), 100806 (Sep 2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2023.100806

    2023

  8. [16]

    In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

    Lopez-Paz, D., Ranzato, M.A.: Gradient Episodic Memory for Continual Learning. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. vol. 30 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.04688, arXiv:2503.04688 [cs]

    Monte, R.D., Pezze, D.D., Susto, G.A.: Teach YOLO to Remember: A Self-Distillation Approach for Continual Object Detection (Mar 2025). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.04688, arXiv:2503.04688 [cs]

    2025 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    Algorithms 14(1), 17 (Jan 2021)

    Nakasi, R., Mwebaze, E., Zawedde, A.: Mobile-Aware Deep Learning Algorithms for Malaria Parasites and White Blood Cells Localization in Thick Blood Smears. Algorithms 14(1), 17 (Jan 2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/a14010017

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    PeerJ 7, e6977 (May 2019)

    Rajaraman, S., Jaeger, S., Antani, S.K., et al.: Performance evaluation of deep neural ensembles toward malaria parasite detection in thin-blood smear images. PeerJ 7, e6977 (May 2019). https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6977, https://peerj. com/articles/6977, publisher: PeerJ Inc

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    Redmon, J., Divvala, S., Girshick, R., Farhadi, A.: You Only Look Once: Unified, Real-Time Object Detection. pp. 779–788 (2016), https: //www.cv-foundation.org/openaccess/content_cvpr_2016/html/Redmon_You_ Only_Look_CVPR_2016_paper.html

    2016

  13. [21]

    In: Domain Adaptation and Representation Transfer

    Sadafi, A., Salehi, R., Gruber, A., Boushehri, S.S., Giehr, P., Navab, N., et al.: A Continual Learning Approach for Cross-Domain White Blood Cell Classification. In: Domain Adaptation and Representation Transfer. pp. 136–146. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham (2024). https://...

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    In: Medical Imaging 2020: Computer-Aided Diagnosis

    Yang, F., Quizon, N., Yu, H., Silamut, K., Maude, R.J., et al.: Cascading YOLO: automated malaria parasite detection for Plasmodium vivax in thin blood smears. In: Medical Imaging 2020: Computer-Aided Diagnosis. vol. 11314, pp. 404–410. SPIE (Mar 2020). https://doi.org/10.1117...

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    Malaria Journal 22(1), 33 (Jan 2023)

    Yu, H., Mohammed, F.O., Abdel Hamid, M., Yang, F., Kassim, Y.M., Mo- hamed, A.O., et al.: Patient-level performance evaluation of a smartphone- based malaria diagnostic application. Malaria Journal 22(1), 33 (Jan 2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-023-04446-0

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    PLOS Medicine 15(11), e1002683 (Nov 2018)

    Zech, J.R., Badgeley, M.A., Liu, M., Costa, A.B., Titano, J.J., Oermann, E.K.: Variable generalization performance of a deep learning model to detect pneumonia in chest radiographs: A cross-sectional study. PLOS Medicine 15(11), e1002683 (Nov 2018). https://doi.org/10.1371/jou...

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.13622, arXiv:2305.13622 [cs]

    Zhuo, T., Cheng, Z., Gao, Z., Fan, H., Kankanhalli, M.: Continual Learning with Strong Experience Replay (Dec 2023). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.13622, arXiv:2305.13622 [cs]

    2023 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.