Manual polarized light microscopy (PLM) is widely used for asbestos screening in soil, yet the technique remains labor-intensive and susceptible to inter-analyst variability and mineralogical interferences. We developed a chrysotile-focused, deep learning-assisted PLM workflow that links field-of-view (FOV) detections to sample-level screening decisions under regulatory-style sampling designs. The method combines a two-stage instance-segmentation pipeline with rotation-assisted paired imaging and recovery (0°/90°) to mitigate optical extinction and retain auditable optical evidence. FOV-level errors are propagated through slide- and sample-level consensus rules using an occupancy parameter q, defined as the probability that a given FOV contains detectable fibers, together with a dataset-calibrated proxy to approximate mass-fraction interpretation. Under a baseline design (3 slides per sample; 20 FOVs per slide), and assuming a 10% sample-level prevalence, strict consensus supported confirmatory performance near moderate occupancy (q≈0.20; ∼0.05% w/w under the present proxy) under the observed workflow-specific false-positive rate. Sustaining confirmatory performance at lower occupancy required increasing the number of scanned FOVs. Below q ≈ 0.07 (approximately 0.017% w/w under the present proxy calibration), confirmatory performance could not be jointly maintained under the present workflow assumptions and estimated background-error structure. These results are translated into an operational triage framework: samples satisfying the strict consensus criterion support a confirmatory-positive call; samples with only one consensus-positive slide trigger targeted additional scanning and/or complementary analysis; and consensus-negative samples support a negative screen within the protocol's confirmable range are reported as "not detected under this protocol".
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: