Abstract
Microscopic examination of blood smears remains the gold standard for diagnosis and laboratory studies with malaria. Inspection of smears is, however, a tedious manual process dependent on trained microscopists with results varying in accuracy between individuals, given the heterogeneity of parasite cell form and disagreement on nomenclature. To address this, we sought to develop an automated image analysis method that improves accuracy and standardisation of cytological smear inspection but retains the capacity for expert confirmation and archiving of images. Here we present a machine-learning method that achieves red blood cell (RBC) detection, differentiation between infected and uninfected RBCs and parasite life stage categorisation from raw, unprocessed heterogeneous images of thin blood films. The method uses a pre-trained Faster Region-Based Convolutional Neural Networks (R-CNN) model for RBC detection that performs accurately, with an average precision of 0.99 at an intersection-over-union threshold of 0.5. A residual neural network (ResNet)-50 model applied to detect infection in segmented RBCs also performs accurately, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.98. Lastly, using a regression model our method successfully recapitulates intra-erythrocytic developmental cycle (IDC) stages with accurate categorisation (ring, trophozoite, schizont), as well as differentiating asexual stages from gametocytes. To accelerate our method’s utility, we have developed a mobile-friendly web-based interface, PlasmoCount, which is capable of automated detection and staging of malaria parasites from uploaded heterogeneous input images of Giemsa-stained thin blood smears. Results gained using either laboratory or phone-based images permit rapid navigation through and review of results for quality assurance. By standardising the assessment of parasite development from microscopic blood smears, PlasmoCount markedly improves user consistency and reproducibility and thereby presents a realistic route to automating the gold standard of field-based malaria diagnosis.
Significance Statement Microscopy inspection of Giemsa-stained thin blood smears on glass slides has been used in the diagnosis of malaria and monitoring of malaria cultures in laboratory settings for >100 years. Manual evaluation is, however, time-consuming, error-prone and subjective with no currently available tool that permits reliable automated counting and archiving of Giemsa-stained images. Here, we present a machine learning method for automated detection and staging of parasite infected red cells from heterogeneous smears. Our method calculates parasitaemia and frequency data on the malaria parasite intraerythrocytic development cycle directly from raw images, standardizing smear assessment and providing reproducible and archivable results. Developed into a web tool, PlasmoCount, this method provides improved standardisation of smear inspection for malaria research and potentially field diagnosis.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was funded with support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1181199) with additional support coming from Wellcome (Investigator Award to JB, 100993/Z/13/Z JB), University of Adelaide scholarship to JC and Hospital Research Foundation Fellowship to DW.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This work described requires the use of human red blood cells (RBCs) for the propagation of Plasmodium falciparum in in vitro culture. Baum laboratory research grade RBCs are obtained commercially from the National Health Service (NHS) Blood Transfusion Service. These RBCs are given anonymously, and no clinical history is required since their use is solely for research use to facilitate parasite growth and development. No information on any donors is recorded or kept. Sourcing of RBCs in this manner, including informed consent are entirely handled by NHSBT. Imperial College London has determined that this does not represent human subjects research, so no independent ethical approval is required, however, the use of RBCs sourced from the NHSBT is approved by the College-wide BioSafety Committee. Human RBCs for use by the Wilson Laboratory were provided by the Australian Red Cross Blood Bank with ethics approval for use of the cells obtained from the University of Adelaide Human Ethics Committee. Human RBCs for use by the Boyle Laboratory were provided by the Australian Red Cross Blood Bank with ethics approval for use of the cells obtained from the Human Research and Ethics Committee of the QIMR-Berghofer Institute of Medical Research. Human RBCs for use by the Uthaipibull Laboratory were obtained from donors after providing informed written consent, following a protocol approved by the Ethics Committee, National Science and Technology Development Agency, Pathum Thani, Thailand, document no. 0021/2560. Anonymous human RBCs used by the Dvorin Laboratory were obtained from a commercial vendor (Valley Biomedical, Winchester, Virginia, USA). The Boston Children's Hospital Institutional Review Board has determined that this does not represent human subjects research as defined in US federal regulations and therefore does not require ethical approval. All procedures involving P. chabaudi in the Reece laboratory were carried out in accordance with the UK Home Office regulations (Animals Scientific Procedures Act 1986; project licence number 70/8546) and approved by the University of Edinburgh.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Original imaging data, experimental metadata and pseudolabels will be available from a publicly accessible Image Data Repository (pending upload and URL to be provided).
