Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 43 references

Fully-automated patient-level malaria assessment on field-prepared thin blood film microscopy images, including Supplementary Information

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A fully automated pipeline reads field-prepared thin blood films, counts malaria parasites, and identifies the species with accuracy close to clinical needs.

desk verdict A genuinely complete field-slide thin-film malaria pipeline with real patient-level results, but the headline quantitation number is measured against a reference the authors themselves do not trust. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01901 v2 pith:NC3DFRXB submitted 2019-08-05 cs.LG eess.IVstat.ML

Charles B. Delahunt , Mayoore S. Jaiswal , Matthew P. Horning , Samantha Janko , Clay M. Thompson , Sourabh Kulhare , Liming Hu , Travis Ostbye
show 17 more authors
Grace Yun Roman Gebrehiwot Benjamin K. Wilson Earl Long Stephane Proux Dionicia Gamboa Peter Chiodini Jane Carter Mehul Dhorda David Isaboke Bernhards Ogutu Wellington Oyibo Elizabeth Villasis Kyaw Myo Tun Christine Bachman David Bell Courosh Mehanian
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGeess.IVstat.ML
keywords malariathinbloodfilmautomatedmicroscopyconvolutionalneuralnetworksparasitemiaquantitationspeciesidentificationpatient-levelmetricsfield-preparedslides
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

This paper tries to establish that a fully automated machine-learning system can perform the two thin blood film tasks clinicians actually need—quantifying high parasitemia and identifying the malaria species—on slides prepared in the field, not just in clean laboratory conditions. The authors argue that the system is close to accurate enough for drug-resistance monitoring and clinical case management, reporting 18% median quantitation error versus expert in-house recounts on 24 holdout slides, 31% median error versus field counts on 81 slides, and species identification accuracy of 70% for P. falciparum (94% when a companion thick film system votes first), 93% for P. vivax, 44% for P. ovale, and 67% for P. malariae. The relevant point for a reader is that malaria microscopy is a bottleneck in low-resource settings; a patient-level automated system that works on imperfect field slides could widen access to quantitation and speciation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a two-branch decision cascade plus a bias-corrected counting formula. Each field-of-view is quality controlled, red blood cells are counted from unclumped cells only (the scanner keeps collecting frames until 20,000 single RBCs are tallied), and candidate objects are found by a purple-highlighting grayscale transform $gray = RB/G^2$ with dynamic thresholding. Each branch then applies a gradient-boosted distractor filter followed by a CNN, with object arbitration assigning shared detections to the branch with the higher score. Quantitation uses $\hat{P} = (n_R - \hat{fp}/\hat{s})(5\times 10^6 / n_{RBC})$, and the paper derives that patient-level counting error is governed by $\sigma(s)/\mu(s) + \sigma(fp)/\mu(s) \cdot 1/P$, which lets the system choose operating points for diagnosis versus quantitation. Species ID sums species probabilities over late-stage objects, then overrides or flags P. falciparum based on ring density and the ring-to-late-stage ratio, including detecting mixed infections when both signals are high.

What would settle it

Re-count the 81 holdout slides with expert microscopists under standardized in-house conditions, then compare the algorithm's estimates against those recounts: if the median error becomes meaningfully larger than 18% or the 31% discrepancy persists against the cleaner reference, the claim of close-to-sufficient quantitation is not confirmed. For species ID, a blinded evaluation on a larger set of P. ovale and P. malariae slides would settle whether the 44% and 67% accuracies reflect scarce training data or a methodological limit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a complete, field-deployable thin-film malaria assessment system—built from a color-based candidate detector, a gradient-boosted distractor filter, and convolutional classifiers arranged in two branches, one for ring-stage parasites and one for late stages—produces patient-level parasitemia estimates and species predictions that are close to the accuracy required for drug resistance studies and clinical use on field-prepared samples. Quantitation is grounded in a formula that corrects raw parasite counts by expected sensitivity and false-positive rate and scales by an automated red-blood-cell count, with an error decomposition showing that variation in sample-level sensitivity ($\sigma(s)/\mu(s)$) is the dominant error source at high parasitemia. Species identification uses late-stage morphology as the primary signal and ring density plus ring-to-late-stage ratio as secondary signals to catch P. falciparum, which typically presents only rings. On holdout slides the system achieves 18% and 31% median quantitation errors against in-house and field reference counts, respectively, and per-species accuracies of 70–93% for the common species, with a large boost for P. falciparum when the thin film result is combined with the companion thick film system.

Load-bearing premise

The system's claimed quantitation accuracy rests on the field microscopists' counts for 81 holdout slides being accurate enough to serve as ground truth, even though the paper itself says those counts are highly variable and that in-house recounts are preferable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Drug-resistance sentinel sites could replace or augment expert microscopists with an automated reader that counts P. falciparum rings on thin films, since the measured 18% median error against in-house recounts is at or near the 25% target used for such studies.
  • Because the machine routinely scans 20,000 red cells instead of the microscopist's 1,000, quantitation noise from Poisson sampling drops substantially, especially in the 16,000–80,000 parasites/µL range, making automated counts more reproducible than manual ones.
  • Combining the thin film system with the companion thick film system raises P. falciparum species identification from 70% to 94%, which suggests a tandem automated pipeline can meet the 90% expert-level bar for the two dominant species.
  • Patient-level error metrics, rather than object-level ROC curves, provide a way for future malaria microscopy studies to report results that compare directly with clinical requirements.
  • The system's species identification remains below expert level for the rarer P. ovale and P. malariae, implying deployment for speciation would currently need more data or careful geographical priors for those species.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 31% median error versus field counts may overstate the algorithm's true error: since field counts themselves carry Poisson and counting noise, the comparison on 81 slides is partly two noisy measurements disagreeing; the 18% error versus in-house recounts is the cleaner estimate of system performance.
  • The same architecture—color-based candidate detection, cheap distractor filtering, CNN classification, and count correction—could transfer to other rare-object counting tasks in stained microscopy wherever a specific stain color marks candidate objects, such as tuberculosis bacilli or other blood parasites; the paper does not make this claim.
  • The species-ID failure pattern on P. ovale and P. malariae is plausibly a data-quantity effect, since those species are rare in the training set; a testable extension would be collecting more Po and Pm late-stage examples and re-measuring the same confusion matrix.
  • Automated thin-film quantitation is explicitly restricted to high parasitemia; extending patient-level assessment to low parasitemia would require integrating the thick-film branch's lower limit of detection, which is already the stated division of labor.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a fully-automated pipeline for patient-level malaria assessment on field-prepared thin blood film microscopy images, combining quality control, RBC counting, object detection, distractor filters, CNN classifiers, species ID, and patient-level disposition. The system is trained on a large dataset of 798 image sets from 765 patients spanning multiple continents, with sample-level train/validation separation. The main reported results are: 18% median quantitation error versus in-house counts on 24 Pf holdout slides, 31% median error versus field counts on 81 Pf holdout slides, and species identification accuracies of 70% for Pf (94% with tandem thick film), 93% for Pv, 44% for Po, and 67% for Pm. The authors claim these results are 'close to sufficiently accurate' for drug-resistance monitoring and clinical use-cases.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is a significant contribution to automated malaria microscopy, with a complete, field-oriented system evaluated with patient-level metrics on a diverse dataset. Strengths include the large and diverse field-prepared dataset, sample-level integrity in train/validation splits, the use of patient-level not object-level metrics, and an explicit discussion of how automation reduces Poisson sampling error. The paper also addresses a documented gap in prior work by focusing on field-prepared slides. However, the supporting evidence for the headline quantitative claims has important gaps that need to be addressed before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV.A.2, Eqns (3), (8), (9)] The derivation of the quantitation error budget is dimensionally inconsistent. In Eqn (1), nR is a count of rings in the nRbc examined RBCs, while \hat{fp} is defined as an expected number of FPs per µL; subtracting the latter from the former in the numerator is not valid. The correct expression should use the expected FP count in the examined blood volume, i.e. \hat{fp}·(nRbc/5e6). The later derivation switches between FP count discrepancy (Δfp in Eqn (5)) and per-µL FP rates in Eqn (3), and as written the second term in Eqn (9) does not follow dimensionally. This inconsistency prevents the quantitative bound of 'usually less than 23%' from being derived from the equations as given.
  2. [§IV.C.2, Fig. 4] The 31% median quantitation error on the 81-slide holdout is measured against field counts, which the paper itself (citing reference [13]) describes as highly variable due to Poisson noise and the difficulty of manual RBC counting. If the field counts are noisy, the reported 31% may be largely disagreement between two imperfect measurements rather than the algorithm's true error. The paper presents no paired comparison on the same slides: the 18% figure comes from a different 24-slide subset measured against in-house counts. Without an uncertainty model for the field-count reference or a paired analysis, the claim that the system meets the <25% error target for drug-resistance monitoring is not supported.
  3. [§IV.C.2, §IV.A.2] There is an inconsistency between the predicted and observed quantitation error. The paper predicts from Eqn (9) that ring quantitation error will 'usually be less than 23%' using σ(s)/µ(s)=0.13 and σ(fp)/µ(s)=6000, yet the observed median error on the 81-slide holdout is 31%. The paper attributes the discrepancy to field-count noise and Poisson variability without quantification. It also does not state explicitly whether the σ values used in the prediction are computed on the validation set or on the same holdout used for the reported results. The authors should report the distribution of errors (not just medians), give confidence intervals, and clarify the provenance of the σ values.
  4. [§IV.D, Table I] The species identification claim is overbroad as stated in the abstract. The holdout set contains only 9 Po and 3 Pm samples, so the reported accuracies of 44% and 67% have very wide confidence intervals, and the paper itself acknowledges that the algorithm does not meet the WHO 90% threshold for these species. The abstract and conclusion that results are 'close to sufficiently accurate' for clinical use should be qualified: the data support this only for Pf (in tandem with thick film) and Pv, not for Po and Pm. This is a load-bearing point for the central claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eqn (2)] The expression 'gray = RB/G^2 + ε' should use explicit multiplication, e.g., 'R·B' or 'R*B', to avoid ambiguity with a variable named RB.
  2. [§IV.C.2] The text 'P > 60k/L' should read 'P > 60k/µL' for consistency with the rest of the paper.
  3. [Table I] The use of red color to indicate treatment-affecting errors is not accessible in grayscale printing; please add a symbol or footnote.
  4. [Fig. 4] Beyond the ±25% reference lines, a Bland-Altman plot or limits-of-agreement analysis would show whether the error is systematic or random and would be more informative for assessing clinical acceptability.
  5. [Table I] The species-ID accuracies would be more interpretable with confidence intervals (e.g., Wilson intervals) given the small cell counts, especially for Po and Pm.
  6. [General] The Supplementary Information is described as a separate arXiv posting [8], but it is also included in the manuscript; please make the reference consistent, for example by citing the appendix sections.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Main results are direct holdout measurements; no reduction of predictions to fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claims are measured on holdout data rather than derived from the fitting procedure: 18% median quantitation error against in-house counts on 24 slides, 31% median error against field counts on 81 slides, and a species-ID confusion matrix on 42 samples. The quantitation estimator in Eqn. 1 uses expected sensitivity and FP-rate hyperparameters obtained from a validation set, which is standard practice, and Eqn. 9 propagates the variance of those quantities into an expected-error estimate. That estimate ('expect our ring quantitation error to usually be less than ... 23%') is an in-sample model calculation, not an independent validation, but it is not used as the reported result and does not make the holdout measurements circular. The only notable self-citation is the tandem thick-film assumption for Pf species ID, where the paper defers to the thick-film method of [6]; this is a stated conditional assumption based on a separately published result, and the measured 70% Pf accuracy is reported independently. No equation in the paper reduces by construction to its own inputs, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Thus there is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on validation of ML models on a private dataset. The listed free parameters are thresholds and expected values chosen on validation sets; the axioms are background assumptions about blood biology, staining behavior, dataset representativeness, and annotation accuracy. No new physical or biological entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • tRing = not stated
    CNN score threshold for the ring branch objects in Eqn 1; determined on a validation set.
  • tLate = not stated
    Score threshold for late stage branch objects in the species ID module; determined on a validation set.
  • expected sensitivity 's = not stated (mean or median of sample sensitivities on validation)
    Used in Eqn 1 to correct ring counts; estimated from the validation set.
  • expected FP rate 'fp = not stated (a µ(fp) of 1.6k is reported at a diagnosis operating point)
    Used in Eqn 1 to remove false positive counts; estimated from negative validation samples.
  • Species ID ring-density and ratio thresholds = empirically determined, not stated
    Section III.J.2 uses these thresholds to override the late-stage species prediction and report Pf.
  • QC pre-set thresholds = not stated
    Section III.C uses standard deviation and gradient dynamic range thresholds to reject blurry or empty FoVs.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Poisson distribution governs parasite counts in blood volumes.
    Used in Section VI-F to compute irreducible quantitation error and the machine's advantage over microscopists.
  • domain assumption Healthy human blood contains 5e6 RBCs per µL.
    Eqn 1 and Section VI-F use this constant to convert RBC counts to blood volume; anemia and other conditions violate it.
  • domain assumption Giemsa staining consistently colors parasite nuclei purple and RBCs pink or gray, so the grayscale transform in Eqn 2 highlights parasites.
    Section III.E relies on this for candidate object detection; staining pH variation is acknowledged as a challenge.
  • ad hoc to paper Transitional and doubtful objects can be excluded from training without biasing the classifier.
    Section II.B excludes these objects to improve accuracy; this is a modeling choice specific to this paper.
  • domain assumption The holdout set is representative of the target field use-case and independent from training at the clinic level.
    Section II.C preserves sample-level integrity, but clinic-level independence is not stated, so the model may have seen similar slides from the same clinics.
  • domain assumption Human expert annotations used as ground truth are correct.
    Section II.B states parasites were annotated by at least two trained humans and vetted, but no inter-annotator agreement is reported.
  • ad hoc to paper CNN training with capped per-sample contributions and distractor selection produces a classifier that generalizes to new field slides.
    Section III.G describes these choices; generalization is assumed and tested on the holdout.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fully-automated patient-level malaria assessment on field-prepared thin blood film microscopy images, including Supplementary Information." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NC3DFRXB

@misc{pith2026190801901,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fully-automated patient-level malaria assessment on field-prepared thin blood film microscopy images, including Supplementary Information},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NC3DFRXB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01901}
}
read the original abstract

Malaria is a life-threatening disease affecting millions. Microscopy-based assessment of thin blood films is a standard method to (i) determine malaria species and (ii) quantitate high-parasitemia infections. Full automation of malaria microscopy by machine learning (ML) is a challenging task because field-prepared slides vary widely in quality and presentation, and artifacts often heavily outnumber relatively rare parasites. In this work, we describe a complete, fully-automated framework for thin film malaria analysis that applies ML methods, including convolutional neural nets (CNNs), trained on a large and diverse dataset of field-prepared thin blood films. Quantitation and species identification results are close to sufficiently accurate for the concrete needs of drug resistance monitoring and clinical use-cases on field-prepared samples. We focus our methods and our performance metrics on the field use-case requirements. We discuss key issues and important metrics for the application of ML methods to malaria microscopy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01901 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Portions of typical thin film FoVs. Green arrow indicates a white blood cell; red arrows indicate parasite-infected RBCs. Other purple stained objects [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (A) Thin film ring-stage parasites (B) distractors. More examples are found in S.I. [8] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The modules and flow of the proposed thin film framework. Rings and late stages are visually distinct targets, so the two branches use different CNN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Quantitation accuracy on 81 holdout samples: Proposed method counts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Examples of the four P lasmodium species at different developmental stages [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ring-stage malaria parasites from field-prepared thin blood films. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distractors from field-prepared thin blood films. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Irreducible Poisson error on thick films for P from 10/ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Irreducible Poisson error on thin films, for 5k [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Irreducible Poisson error for all parasitemias, for various numbers of WBCs or RBCs examined. The two top pairs of lines, that start at P = 5k/ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: CNN architectures. A: Ring branch. B: Late stage branch [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Report 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Report 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [13]

    A malaria diagnostic tool based on computer vision screening and visualization of Plasmodium falciparum candidate areas in digitized blood smears

    N. Linder et al., “A malaria diagnostic tool based on computer vision screening and visualization of Plasmodium falciparum candidate areas in digitized blood smears”, PLoS One, 2014

    work page 2014

  2. [1]

    World malaria report 2018

    World Health Organization, “World malaria report 2018”, Geneva: World Health Organization’, WHO, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [2]

    CDC, https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/diagnosis treatment/clinicians2.html

    work page

  4. [3]

    Lack of knowledge regard- ing the microscopic diagnosis of malaria by technicians of the laboratory network in Luanda, Angola

    G. Nazare-Pembele, L. Rojas, F.A. Nunez, “Lack of knowledge regard- ing the microscopic diagnosis of malaria by technicians of the laboratory network in Luanda, Angola”, Biomedica, 2016

    work page 2016

  5. [4]

    Mi- croscopy and outpatient malaria case management among older children and adults in Kenya

    D. Zurovac, B. Midia, S.A. Ochola, M. English, R.W. Snow, “Mi- croscopy and outpatient malaria case management among older children and adults in Kenya”, Trop Med Int Health. 2006

    work page 2006

  6. [5]

    Basic Malaria Microscopy: Tutor’s guide

    World Health Organization and Center for Disease Control, “Basic Malaria Microscopy: Tutor’s guide”, WHO, 2010

    work page 2010

  7. [6]

    Mehanian, et al., ”Computer-Automated Malaria Diagnosis and Quantitation Using Convolutional Neural Networks”, CVPR, 2017

    C. Mehanian, et al., ”Computer-Automated Malaria Diagnosis and Quantitation Using Convolutional Neural Networks”, CVPR, 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [7]

    Garnham, ”Malaria parasites and other haemosporidia”, Black- well Scientific Publications Ltd., 1966

    P.C.C. Garnham, ”Malaria parasites and other haemosporidia”, Black- well Scientific Publications Ltd., 1966

    work page 1966

Show all 43 references
  1. [8]

    Supplementary Information for ‘Fully-automated patient-level malaria assessment on field-prepared thin blood film microscopy images’

    C.B. Delahunt, M.S. Jaiswal et al., “Supplementary Information for ‘Fully-automated patient-level malaria assessment on field-prepared thin blood film microscopy images’ ”, arXiv, 2019

    2019

  2. [9]

    Image analysis and machine learning for detecting malaria

    M. Poostchi, K. Silamut, R. Maude, S. Jaeger and G. Thoma, “Image analysis and machine learning for detecting malaria”, Transl Res, 2018

    2018

  3. [10]

    Koller and Y

    D. Koller and Y . Bengio, ”A fireside chat with Daphne Koller”, ICLR 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4mdV1CIpvI

    2018

  4. [11]

    M.T. Le, T. R. Bretschneider, C. Kuss and P. R. Preiser, ”A novel semi-automatic image processing approach to determine P. falciparum parasitemia in Giemsa-stained thin blood smears”, BMC Cell Biol, 2008

    2008

  5. [12]

    Computer vision for microscopy diagnosis of malaria

    F. B. Tek, A. G. Dempster and I. Kale, “Computer vision for microscopy diagnosis of malaria”, Malaria J, 2009

    2009

  6. [14]

    Automated status identification of microscopic images obtained from malaria thin blood smears using bayes decision: A study case in Plasmodium falciparum

    D. Anggraini et al., “Automated status identification of microscopic images obtained from malaria thin blood smears using bayes decision: A study case in Plasmodium falciparum”, ICEEI, 2011

    2011

  7. [15]

    G. P. Gopakumar et al., ”Convolutional neural network-based malaria diagnosis from focus stack of blood smear images acquired using custom-built slide scanner”, J Biophotonics, 2018

    2018

  8. [16]

    Abbas, et al., ”Machine aided malaria parasitemia detection in Giemsa-stained thin blood smears”, Neural Comp & Application, 2018

    N. Abbas, et al., ”Machine aided malaria parasitemia detection in Giemsa-stained thin blood smears”, Neural Comp & Application, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Recent Advances of Malaria Parasites Detection Systems Based on Mathematical Morphology

    A. Loddo, C. Di Ruberto and M. Kocher. “Recent Advances of Malaria Parasites Detection Systems Based on Mathematical Morphology”, Sensors 2018

    2018

  10. [18]

    N. E. Ross, C. J. Pritchard, D. M. Rubin and A. G. Duse, ”Automated image processing method for the diagnosis and classification of malaria on thin blood smears”, Med & Bio Engineering & Computing, 2006

    2006

  11. [19]

    Motic Optical, https://www.motic.com

  12. [20]

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren and J. Sun, ”Spatial pyramid pooling in deep convolutional networks for visual recognition”, ECCV , 2014

    2014

  13. [21]

    Ren, et al., ”Faster R-CNN: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks”, Adv Neural Inf Process Syst , 2015

    S. Ren, et al., ”Faster R-CNN: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks”, Adv Neural Inf Process Syst , 2015

    2015

  14. [22]

    Liu, et al., ”SSD: Single shot multibox detector”, ECCV , 2016

    W. Liu, et al., ”SSD: Single shot multibox detector”, ECCV , 2016

    2016

  15. [23]

    Redmon, et al., ”You only look once: Unified, real-time object detection”, CVPR, 2016

    J. Redmon, et al., ”You only look once: Unified, real-time object detection”, CVPR, 2016

    2016

  16. [24]

    Pertuz, D

    S. Pertuz, D. Puig and M. A. Garcia, ”Analysis of focus measure operators for shape-from-focus”, Pattern Recognit, 2013

    2013

  17. [25]

    L. Kang, P. Ye, Y . Li and D. Doermann, ”Convolutional neural networks for no-reference image quality assessment”, CVPR, 2014

    2014

  18. [26]

    M. Jaiswal, et al., ”Characterization of cervigram image sharpness using multiple self-referenced measurements and random forest classifiers”, Optics and Biophotonics in Low-Resource Settings IV , 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    Chen and C

    T. Chen and C. Guestrin, ”XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System”, Proc 22nd ACM SIGKDD, San Francisco, 2016

    2016

  20. [28]

    J. F. Brenner, et al., ”An automated microscope for cytologic research a preliminary evaluation”, Journal of Histochem & Cytochem, 1976

    1976

  21. [29]

    LeCun, Y

    Y . LeCun, Y . Bengio and G. Hinton, ”Deep learning”, Nature, 2015

    2015

  22. [30]

    Litjens, et al., ”A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis”, Med Image Analysis, 2017

    G. Litjens, et al., ”A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis”, Med Image Analysis, 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    Russakovsky, et al., ”ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Competition”, International Journal of Computer Vision, 2015

    O. Russakovsky, et al., ”ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Competition”, International Journal of Computer Vision, 2015

    2015

  24. [32]

    Szegedy, et al., ”Going Deeper with Convolutions”, CVPR, 2015

    C. Szegedy, et al., ”Going Deeper with Convolutions”, CVPR, 2015

    2015

  25. [33]

    J. T. Springenberg, A. Dosovitskiy, T. Brox and M. Riedmiller, ”Striving for simplicity: The all convolutional net”, arXiv:1412.6806, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Simonyan and A

    K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman, ”Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition”, arXiv:1409.1556, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Jia, et al., ”Caffe: Convolutional architecture for fast feature embed- ding”, Proc ACM Intern’l Conf Multimedia, 2014

    Y . Jia, et al., ”Caffe: Convolutional architecture for fast feature embed- ding”, Proc ACM Intern’l Conf Multimedia, 2014

    2014

  28. [36]

    Glorot and Y

    X. Glorot and Y . Bengio, ”Understanding the difficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks”, Proc 13th Intern’l Conf AI & Stats, 2010

    2010

  29. [37]

    Epidemiology of malaria in endemic areas

    B. Autino, A. Noris, R. Russo, F. Castelli, “Epidemiology of malaria in endemic areas”, Mediterr J Hematol Infect Diseases. 2012

    2012

  30. [38]

    Haralick, K

    R. Haralick, K. Shanmugam and D. Its’hak, ”Textural features for image classification”, IEEE Trans on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 1973

    1973

  31. [39]

    Yosinski, J

    J. Yosinski, J. Clune, Y . Bengio and H. Lipson, ”How transferable are features in deep neural networks?”, Adv Neural Inf Process Syst, 2014

    2014

  32. [40]

    Malaria Microscopy Quality Assurance Manual - Ver2

    WHO, “Malaria Microscopy Quality Assurance Manual - Ver2”, 2016

    2016

  33. [41]

    Dhorda, WW ARN, Private Communication

    M. Dhorda, WW ARN, Private Communication

  34. [42]

    White, ”The parasite clearance curve”, Malaria J, 2011

    N. White, ”The parasite clearance curve”, Malaria J, 2011

    2011

  35. [43]

    Automated microscopy for routine malaria diagnosis: a field comparison on Giemsa-stained blood films in Peru

    K. Torres et al., “Automated microscopy for routine malaria diagnosis: a field comparison on Giemsa-stained blood films in Peru”, Malaria J, 2018. Fig. 8. Irreducible Poisson error on thick films for P from 10/ µL to 16k/µL, at three values of N = # WBCs counted: 500 (red curve),...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.