Back

An AI-Powered Smartphone Application for Universal and Standardized Reading and Interpretation of Lateral Flow Assays

Bermejo-Pelaez, D.; Darias, O.; Pastor, L.; Valles, R.; Diez, N.; Lin, L.; Garcia-Villena, J.; Cuadrado, D.; Vladimirov, A.; Alamo, E.; Postigo, M.; Rodriguez-Dominguez, M.; Canton, R.; Rodriguez-Tudela, J. L.; Alastruey Izquierdo, A.; Bohorquez, L. C.; Rubio, J. M.; Dacal, E.; Luengo-Oroz, M.

2026-05-18 public and global health
10.64898/2026.05.14.26352875 medRxiv
Show abstract

Introduction. Lateral flow assays (LFAs) are indispensable rapid diagnostic tools in healthcare, enabling point-of-care diagnosis critical for patient management and support disease burden assessment and surveillance when results are properly recorded. However, misinterpretation errors and unreported cases remain a concern. A quality-assured, affordable Ai-powered tool, supporting the decision-making during result interpretation could promote proper disease monitoring and epidemiological surveillance. Here, we describe the performance of a universal AI model to digitize and interpret results from multiple LFA types through a smartphone application, a step that could ultimately enable standardized and digitally reportable test outcomes. Methods. The AI algorithm was evaluated in 17 LFA types, including both 2-band and 3-band tests for different diseases and manufacturers. The model was trained on a dataset of 22,576 images captured under diverse lighting conditions with different smartphone models and using a custom mobile application, TiraSpot (Spotlab, Madrid, Spain). To assess generalizability, a leave-one-out cross-validation was applied, where in each LFA type was iteratively excluded from training and used for testing. Model performance was evaluated using bootstrapping on the inference dataset. Results. In the assessment of the model's ability to generalize to new LFA types not previously analyzed (not included during development), the model achieved an overall AUC of 94.3% for second band detection. This overall performance was enhanced to 99.3% (Sensitivity=98,6%; Specificity=98%) after training with 50 images of each LFA type, highlighting the benefit of additional data for specific LFA types. For the third band detection, where less training data was available, the system achieved an overall AUC of 83.9% for unseen LFAs, improving to 94.2% (Sensitivity=92.9%; Specificity=87,9%) after training with 50 images of each LFA type. Conclusion. This system demonstrates the feasibility of an AI-powered universal digital reader for interpreting LFA results from diverse test types using smartphone-captured images. Its compatibility with standard smartphones makes it a universal tool, enabling reliable LFA interpretation across devices and settings. By standardizing test interpretation and digitizing results, this tool could support decision making in result interpretation, enhancing epidemiological surveillance, particularly in resource-limited settings. Its adaptability across various infections highlights its potential to improve diagnostic consistency and support disease management in diverse healthcare settings.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
33.7%
2
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
10.7%
3
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.5%
50% of probability mass above
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 22%
5.0%
5
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.4%
6
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.3%
7
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 41%
3.3%
8
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.7%
9
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.1%
10
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.4%
11
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 18%
1.4%
12
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.4%
13
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.0%
14
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
15
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
16
Analytical Chemistry
205 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
17
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.8%
18
Infection
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
19
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
20
SoftwareX
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
21
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
98 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
22
Nature Biomedical Engineering
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
23
British Journal of General Practice
22 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
24
IEEE Access
31 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
25
Transfusion
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.7%
26
Journal of Clinical Virology
62 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%
27
ACS Central Science
66 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
28
JMIRx Med
31 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%