Retrospective study develops a code-free machine learning model for malaria detection in blood smears, indicating promising accuracy.
Background Microscopic examination of peripheral blood smears (PBSs) remains the gold standard for malaria diagnosis but is time-consuming and prone to interobserver variability. Artificial intelligence-based approaches can assist in malaria parasite (MPs) detection; however, many existing models require coding expertise or lack integration into laboratory workflows. The study aims to demonstrate the development and deployment of a code-free machine learning (ML) model for MP detection using a benchtop digital laboratory microscope. Methods In this retrospective study, archived Leishman-stained PBS slides positive for Plasmodium vivax and P. falciparum were digitised at 1000× magnification. 422 fields across 40 slides were digitised, segmented and augmented to yield 7041 images, which were divided into training, validation and test subsets in an 80:10:10 ratio. Ring forms, trophozoites, leucocytes and platelets were annotated in the images. Apple’s Create ML software platform was used for model training. The outcomes were assessed using intersection over union at a 50% threshold (IoU 50 ), F1-score (harmonic mean of precision and recall) and confusion matrix analysis. The trained model was deployed on a digital benchtop laboratory microscope for live object detection overlay. Results The ML model demonstrated a localisation accuracy (IoU 50 ) of 89% and 88% during training and validation, respectively. During testing, a mean IoU 50 of 80% was obtained, ranging from 64% for ring forms to 95% for trophozoites, with a mean precision of 92%, a recall of 93% and an F1 score of 0.93 for object classification. Conclusions This study demonstrates the feasibility of developing an ML model for MP detection using a code-free platform and implementation on a digital laboratory microscope.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Saxena et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: