LAUSR

Abstract Background Digital microscopy combined with artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being implemented in health care, predominantly in advanced laboratory settings. However, AI-supported digital microscopy could be especially advantageous in primary health care settings, since such methods could improve access to diagnostics via automation and a decreased need for experts on-site. To our knowledge, no scoping or systematic review has previously examined the use of AI-supported digital microscopy in primary health care laboratories, and a scoping review could guide future research by providing insights into the challenges of implementing these novel methods. Objective This scoping review aimed to map published peer-reviewed studies on AI-supported digital microscopy in primary health care laboratories to generate an overview of the subject. Methods A systematic search of the databases PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and IEEE was conducted on October 2, 2024. The inclusion criteria in the scoping review were based on 3 concepts: using digital microscopy, AI, and comparison of the results with a standard diagnostic system, and 1 context, being performed in primary health care laboratories. Additional inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed diagnostic accuracy studies published in English, performed on humans and achieving a sample-level diagnosis. The study selection and data extraction were performed by 2 independent researchers (JVB and AS), and cases of disagreement were resolved through discussion with a third researcher (NL). The methodology is in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. Results A total of 3403 papers were screened during the paper identification process, of which 22 (0.6%) were included in the scoping review. The samples analyzed were as follows: blood (n=12) for blood cell and malaria detection, urine (n=4) for urinalysis and parasite detection, cytology of atypical oral (n=1) and cervical cells (n=2), stool (n=2) for parasite detection, and sputum (n=1) for ferning patterns indicating inflammation. Both conventional (n=15) and specifically developed methods (n=7) were used in sample preparation. The AI-supported digital microscopy achieved comparable diagnostic accuracy to the reference standard for complete blood counts, malaria detection, identification of stool and genitourinary parasites, screening for oral and cervical cellular atypia, detection of pulmonary inflammation, and urinalysis. Furthermore, AI-supported digital microscopy achieved higher sensitivity than manual microscopy in 6/7 (85.7%) studies that used a reference standard that allowed for this comparison. Conclusions AI-supported digital microscopy achieved comparable diagnostic accuracy to the reference standard for diagnosing multiple targets in primary health care laboratories and may be particularly advantageous for improving diagnostic sensitivity. With further research addressing challenges such as scalability and cost-effectiveness, AI-supported digital microscopy could improve access to diagnostics, especially in expert-scarce and resource-limited settings.