Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing medicine by automating tasks like image segmentation and pattern recognition. These AI approaches support seamless integration with existing platforms, enhancing diagnostics, treatment, and patient care. While recent advancements have demonstrated AI superiority in advancing microfluidics for point of care diagnostics, a gap remains in comparative evaluations of AI algorithms in testing microfluidics. We conducted a comparative evaluation of AI models specifically for the two-class classification problem of identifying the presence or absence of bubbles in microfluidic channels under various imaging conditions. Using a model microfluidic system with a single channel loaded with 3D transparent objects (bubbles), we challenged each of the tested machine learning (ML) (n = 6) and deep learning (DL) (n = 9) models across different background settings. Evaluation revealed that the Random Forest ML model achieved 95.52% sensitivity, 82.57% specificity, and 97% AUC, outperforming other ML algorithms. Among DL models suitable for mobile integration, DenseNet169 demonstrated superior performance, achieving 92.63% sensitivity, 92.22% specificity, and 92% AUC. Remarkably, DenseNet169 integration into a mobile POC system demonstrated exceptional accuracy (> 0.84) in testing microfluidics at under challenging imaging settings. Our study confirms the transformative potential of AI in healthcare, emphasizing its capacity to revolutionize precision medicine through accurate and accessible diagnostics. The integration of AI into healthcare systems holds promise for enhancing patient outcomes and streamlining healthcare delivery.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This study did not receive any funding

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript