↓ Skip to main content

Computer-vision-based technology for fast, accurate and cost effective diagnosis of malaria

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Computer-vision-based technology for fast, accurate and cost effective diagnosis of malaria
Published in
Malaria Journal, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12936-015-1060-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bina Srivastava, Anupkumar R. Anvikar, Susanta K. Ghosh, Neelima Mishra, Navin Kumar, Arnon Houri-Yafin, Joseph Joel Pollak, Seth J. Salpeter, Neena Valecha

Abstract

Microscopy has long been considered to be the gold standard for diagnosis of malaria despite the introduction of newer assays. However, it has many challenges like requirement of trained microscopists and logistic issues. A vision based device that can diagnose malaria, provide speciation and estimate parasitaemia was evaluated. The device was evaluated using samples from 431 consented patients, 361 of which were initially screened by RDT and microscopy and later analysed by PCR. It was a prospective, non-randomized, blinded trial. Quantification of parasitaemia was performed by two experienced technicians. Samples were subjected to diagnosis by Sight Dx digital imaging scanning. The sensitivity and specificity of the SightDx P1 device for analysed samples were found to be 97.05 and 96.33 %, respectively, when compared to PCR. When compared to microscopy, sensitivity and specificity were found to be 94.4 and 95.6 %, respectively. The device was able to speciate 73.3 % of the PCR Plasmodium falciparum positive samples and 91.4 % of PCR Plasmodium vivax positive samples. The ability of the device to detect parasitaemia as compared with microscopy, was within 50 % in 71.3 % of cases and demonstrated a correlation coefficient of 0.89.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 22%
Student > Master 11 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 15%
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 11 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 12%
Engineering 5 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 11 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 December 2015.
All research outputs
#18,433,196
of 22,836,570 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#5,048
of 5,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#284,073
of 393,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#133
of 160 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,836,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,572 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 393,178 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 160 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.