Metrics to guide development of machine learning algorithms for malaria diagnosis

Summaries already available in other languages: fr

Authors: Charles B. Delahunt, Noni Gachuhi, Matthew P. Horning

17 pages, 5 figures

Abstract: Automated malaria diagnosis is a difficult but high-value target for machine learning (ML), and effective algorithms could save many thousands of children's lives. However, current ML efforts largely neglect crucial use case constraints and are thus not clinically useful. Two factors in particular are crucial to developing algorithms translatable to clinical field settings: (i) Clear understanding of the clinical needs that ML solutions must accommodate; and (ii) task-relevant metrics for guiding and evaluating ML models. Neglect of these factors has seriously hampered past ML work on malaria, because the resulting algorithms do not align with clinical needs. In this paper we address these two issues in the context of automated malaria diagnosis via microscopy on Giemsa-stained blood films. First, we describe why domain expertise is crucial to effectively apply ML to malaria, and list technical documents and other resources that provide this domain knowledge. Second, we detail performance metrics tailored to the clinical requirements of malaria diagnosis, to guide development of ML models and evaluate model performance through the lens of clinical needs (versus a generic ML lens). We highlight the importance of a patient-level perspective, interpatient variability, false positive rates, limit of detection, and different types of error. We also discuss reasons why ROC curves, AUC, and F1, as commonly used in ML work, are poorly suited to this context. These findings also apply to other diseases involving parasite loads, including neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) such as schistosomiasis.

Submitted to arXiv on 14 Sep. 2022

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2209.06947v2

This paper's license doesn't allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing process is here made with the paper's metadata rather than the article.

The summary is not ready yet
Created on 27 Jan. 2024
Available in other languages: fr

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.