Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24083056›Full record

ReviewJournal of pathology informatics2013

Relationship between magnification and resolution in digital pathology systems.

Tiffany L Sellaro, Robert Filkins, Chelsea Hoffman, Jeffrey L Fine, Jon Ho, Anil V Parwani, Liron Pantanowitz, Michael Montalto

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of pathology informatics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Defining the area of mitoses counting in invasive breast cancer using whole slide image.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. (Re) Defining the High-Power Field for Digital Pathology.Journal of pathology informatics · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Tiffany L SellaroOmnyx, LLC, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Robert Filkins
Chelsea Hoffman
Jeffrey L Fine
Jon Ho
Anil V Parwani
Liron Pantanowitz
Michael Montalto

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many pathology laboratories are implementing digital pathology systems. The image resolution and scanning (digitization) magnification can vary greatly between these digital pathology systems. In addition, when digital images are compared with viewing images using a microscope, the cellular features can vary in size. This article highlights differences in magnification and resolution between the conventional microscopes and the digital pathology systems. As more pathologists adopt digital pathology, it is important that they understand these differences and how they ultimately translate into what the pathologist can see and how this may impact their overall viewing experience.

Indexed as

Digitalmagnificationpathologyresolutionwhole slide image

Identifiers

PMID24083056
PMCPMC3779393

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.