### Peer review (sept 2022)

#### Name of the person reviewing

Nemo Andrea

#### Name of the project being reviewed

Low cost automated microscope for the diagnosis of neglected tropical diseases, [available on github](https://github.com/jossoca/OHA_micro)
Designed by Jose Ocampo (a.k.a. `jossoca`)

### Give feedback on your hardware documentation

Cool project, I personally love microscopy so seeing more projects in this direction is always nice!

The project is listed on GitHub, which is excellent! It would be good, however, to add some tags and a description for improve findability. _note that this is purely a GitHub feature, it is not contained in the actual git repository_

I think the project has a clear goal, targets and value proposition. I think it might be nice to add some examples of 'items/tropical diseases' that could be diagnosed with a setup like this.

> ❓ It is not entirely clear what the 'low cost' target is that you are aiming for? You could put a target value; it's not a problem if you change it later. It would allow contributors to compare your projects to other projects and **suggest changes/components in the right price range.**

I like the markdown file, but it could use a little bit of expansion (I understand the project is still in early phases, so don't worry too much about it). Some more headers might make it easier to read.

I like that you already have a prototype setup, looks very fancy ✨. As a newcomer to the project, it is hard for me to make out the full setup from the single picture. Could you add some more and maybe annotate some of the items we see?

I like the use of GitHub issues for the test, as it does not need to be in the version control (git) itself, but it gives me a good idea of what you are testing!

### Give feedback on your project

The project has an excellent list of targeted features, which are ambitious for the (duration of the) course, but realistic for the project I'd say.

A nice reflection on the current issues and not-yet-tested items. Very wise to think ahead with a complex project like this :)

The prototyping seems solid, starting with the most important part now (the optics).

Concretely, I think it would be fantastic 😊 if you could adress the following points in future documentation updates :
1. What is the target cost of the scope ($100, $500, $1000, $5000 ?)
2. What are other open microscope intiatives doing and what do they not cover that you want, or what could you learn from their approaches? See for example the [open flexure microscope](https://openflexure.org/projects/microscope/) or the [Open UC2 microscope/toolbox](https://github.com/openUC2/UC2-GIT)
3. What are the target specifications you think you will be needing on the components? _This would also help others make suggestions for items_. Think about the NA of the objective (what is the smallest detail you need to see) or the XY range of the stage, and the step precision of the stage.

> I think your current microscope setup is super nice, but maybe slightly _overkill_ for your application. your XY stage sseems to be a nice roller bearing stage, but I suspect you could get away with a lot less (in terms of cost, weight, precision) and still be able to scan the sample. The stage doesn't have to be very precise; you can even stich together the different images in software to get a perfect reconstruction (even with very imprecise stage)

> A raspberry Pi is a good choice for the brains of the machine I think! From a cost perspective it would be good to think about if you can get away with a Pi zero 2. Since you want to run ML stuff, maybe you do need the full RPi 4.

> For the raspberry Pi touchscreen interface, I think the `Raspberry pad 5` (see [this preview video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0glRpsoWSQI)) would be a solid choice. Its a bit pricy (70-110$) but it is very sleek and well integrated. It pairs with a RPi compute module, which can in theory be swapped out for newer generations so you can **upgrade** the scopes as new modules come out!

Instead of microsphres, consider a fluorescence calibration target sample. Might be more expensive but reliable in the long run.

For test: is fluorescence a priority? Are fluorescent dyes part of standard pap smear anaylsis?