↓ Skip to main content

A Mathematical Framework for Combining Decisions of Multiple Experts toward Accurate and Remote Diagnosis of Malaria Using Tele-Microscopy

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
A Mathematical Framework for Combining Decisions of Multiple Experts toward Accurate and Remote Diagnosis of Malaria Using Tele-Microscopy
Published in
PLOS ONE, October 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0046192
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sam Mavandadi, Steve Feng, Frank Yu, Stoyan Dimitrov, Karin Nielsen-Saines, William R. Prescott, Aydogan Ozcan

Abstract

We propose a methodology for digitally fusing diagnostic decisions made by multiple medical experts in order to improve accuracy of diagnosis. Toward this goal, we report an experimental study involving nine experts, where each one was given more than 8,000 digital microscopic images of individual human red blood cells and asked to identify malaria infected cells. The results of this experiment reveal that even highly trained medical experts are not always self-consistent in their diagnostic decisions and that there exists a fair level of disagreement among experts, even for binary decisions (i.e., infected vs. uninfected). To tackle this general medical diagnosis problem, we propose a probabilistic algorithm to fuse the decisions made by trained medical experts to robustly achieve higher levels of accuracy when compared to individual experts making such decisions. By modelling the decisions of experts as a three component mixture model and solving for the underlying parameters using the Expectation Maximisation algorithm, we demonstrate the efficacy of our approach which significantly improves the overall diagnostic accuracy of malaria infected cells. Additionally, we present a mathematical framework for performing 'slide-level' diagnosis by using individual 'cell-level' diagnosis data, shedding more light on the statistical rules that should govern the routine practice in examination of e.g., thin blood smear samples. This framework could be generalized for various other tele-pathology needs, and can be used by trained experts within an efficient tele-medicine platform.

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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
United Kingdom 1 2%
India 1 2%
Unknown 53 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Student > Master 8 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 13 23%
Unknown 6 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 25%
Engineering 11 19%
Computer Science 7 12%
Physics and Astronomy 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 8 14%
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 12 October 2012.
All research outputs
#17,667,907
of 22,681,577 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#146,273
of 193,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,575
of 172,686 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,254
of 4,570 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,681,577 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,576 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 172,686 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,570 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.