Currently submitted to: JMIR Human Factors
Date Submitted: Jul 21, 2026
Open Peer Review Period: Aug 10, 2026 - Oct 5, 2026
(closed for review but you can still tweet)
NOTE: This is an unreviewed Preprint
Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint (What is a preprint?). Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn (a note "no longer under consideration" will appear above).
Peer review me: Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period (in this case, a "Peer Review Me" button to sign up as reviewer is displayed above). All preprints currently open for review are listed here. Outside of the formal open peer-review period we encourage you to tweet about the preprint.
Citation: Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author).
Final version: If our system detects a final peer-reviewed "version of record" (VoR) published in any journal, a link to that VoR will appear below. Readers are then encourage to cite the VoR instead of this preprint.
Settings: If you are the author, you can login and change the preprint display settings, but the preprint URL/DOI is supposed to be stable and citable, so it should not be removed once posted.
Submit: To post your own preprint, simply submit to any JMIR journal, and choose the appropriate settings to expose your submitted version as preprint.
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
An AI‑enabled, microscope‑integrated tool for decentralizing breast cancer diagnosis in Uganda: A mixed‑methods usability and workflow feasibility study
ABSTRACT
Background:
Breast cancer is a leading cause of cancer morbidity and mortality worldwide, with disproportionately poor outcomes in low- and middle-income countries. In Uganda, delays between clinical presentation and diagnosis are driven by limited pathology capacity, long specimen transport times and weak referral systems. A task-shifting, low-cost diagnostic tool that brings cytology assessment closer to patients could reduce diagnostic delay and loss to follow-up.
Objective:
To evaluate and compare the usability and workflow feasibility of two Ekyaalo Diagnostics hardware form factors (V1 and V2), a low-cost AI-assisted platform for decentralized fine needle aspiration cytology slide digitization and remote pathology review across urban and rural health facilities in Uganda. It consists of a standard light microscope, off-the-shelf optical components and a smartphone application.
Methods:
We conducted a parallel, mixed-methods usability study to compare two hardware form factors across clinical settings in Uganda, in partnership with Makerere University, Mulago National Referral Hospital (NRH) and Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital (RRH). Study 1 evaluated V1 (smartphone adapter) at two tertiary hospitals (Mulago NRH and Mbarara RRH), while Study 2 evaluated V2 (eyepiece camera) across 11 rural and urban healthcare facilities spanning Health Centre IV–VII levels. Outcomes included System Usability Scale (SUS), ROI capture performance, Likert-scale usability measures and qualitative feedback on workflow integration and AI-assisted diagnosis. Non-parametric tests were used for group comparisons, and thematic analysis was used to analyze qualitative data from interviews and direct observations.
Results:
Both studies yielded encouraging results. In Study 1, mean SUS was 77.24 ± 17.18 indicated “good” usability and no statistically significant SUS differences across roles. Among 38 participants with capture data, mean regions of interest (ROI) captured was 6.39 ± 9.66, approximating routine review. AI outputs were viewed as supportive of the pathologist, rather than definitive. In Study 2, mean SUS was 66.59 ± 98.87, reflecting increased perceived complexity in rural contexts. Around 80% reported low confidence in acting on AI outputs without pathologist confirmation. Qualitative findings highlighted improved image quality and setup with V2 eyepiece camera but persistent constraints: shared microscopes, variable slide quality and a need for scanning the whole‑slide rather than sampling ROIs.
Conclusions:
Ekyaalo Diagnostics demonstrated promising usability and strong acceptance among referral laboratory staff in Uganda. Ongoing iterative refinements that prioritize integration in rural settings, particularly by providing broader slide context and minimizing disruption to shared microscopes, are expected to enhance performance and acceptability. Given the similar challenges faced by low- and middle- income countries, Ekyaalo Diagnostics has the potential to reduce diagnostic delays in low-resource settings worldwide by supporting decentralized diagnostic workflows in low-resource settings.
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.