ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2014
Intra-observer reproducibility of whole slide imaging for the primary diagnosis of breast needle biopsies.
Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic concordance and discordance in digital pathology: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of clinical pathology · 2021Pooled it
- Whole Slide Imaging Versus Microscopy for Primary Diagnosis in Surgical Pathology: A Multicenter Blinded Randomized Noninferiority Study of 1992 Cases (Pivotal Study).The American journal of surgical pathology · 2018Trial
- Digital Validation in Breast Cancer Needle Biopsies: Comparison of Histological Grade and Biomarker Expression Assessment Using Conventional Light Microscopy, Whole Slide Imaging, and Digital Image Analysis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Integrating digital pathology into clinical practice.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2022Review
- Validation of digital microscopy: Review of validation methods and sources of bias.Veterinary pathology · 2022Review
- Integrated digital pathology at scale: A solution for clinical diagnostics and cancer research at a large academic medical center.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021Article
- Recommendations for pathologic practice using digital pathology: consensus report of the Korean Society of Pathologists.Journal of pathology and translational medicine · 2020Review
- Validation of a digital pathology system including remote review during the COVID-19 pandemic.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2020Article
- Whole slide imaging equivalency and efficiency study: experience at a large academic center.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2019Article
- Reproducibility and Feasibility of Strategies for Morphologic Assessment of Renal Biopsies Using the Nephrotic Syndrome Study Network Digital Pathology Scoring System.Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine · 2018Article
- Diagnostic Reproducibility: What Happens When the Same Pathologist Interprets the Same Breast Biopsy Specimen at Two Points in Time?Annals of surgical oncology · 2017Article
- Digital pathology imaging as a novel platform for standardization and globalization of quantitative nephropathology.Clinical kidney journal · 2017Article
- A Randomized Study Comparing Digital Imaging to Traditional Glass Slide Microscopy for Breast Biopsy and Cancer Diagnosis.Journal of pathology informatics · 2017Article
- Use of Digital Whole Slide Imaging in Dermatopathology.Journal of digital imaging · 2016Article
- A multisite validation of whole slide imaging for primary diagnosis using standardized data collection and analysis.Journal of pathology informatics · 2016Article
- Image Montaging for Creating a Virtual Pathology Slide: An Innovative and Economical Tool to Obtain a Whole Slide Image.Analytical cellular pathology (Amsterdam) · 2016Article
- Exploring virtual reality technology and the Oculus Rift for the examination of digital pathology slides.Journal of pathology informatics · 2016Article
- American Telemedicine Association clinical guidelines for telepathology.Journal of pathology informatics · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAutomated whole slide imaging (WSI), also known as virtual microscopy is rapidly becoming an important tool in diagnostic pathology. Currently, the primary utilization of the technique is for transmission of digital images, for second opinion consultation, as well as for quality assurance and education. The high-resolution of digital images along with the refinement of technology could now allow for WSI to be used as an alternative to conventional microscopy (CM) as a first line diagnostic platform. However, the accuracy and reproducibility of the technology for the routine histopathologic diagnosis has not been established yet. This study was undertaken to compare the intra-observer variability of WSI and CM in the primary diagnosis of breast biopsies. MATERIALS AND
methodsOne hundred and three consecutive core needle biopsies of breast were selected for this study. Each slide was digitally scanned and the images were stored in a shared file. Three board-certified pathologists independently reviewed the glass slides by CM first, and in an interval of 2-3 weeks for the 2(nd) time to establish their baseline CM versus CM reproducibility. They then reviewed the digital images of all cases following the same interval of time to compare the reproducibility of WSI versus CM for each observer. The diagnostic categories included the typical range of benign and malignant mammary lesions.
resultsThe intra-observer variability for CM versus CM was 4%, 7%, and 0% for observers 1, 2, and 3 respectively. The diagnostic variability for WSI versus CM was 1%, 4%, and 1% for the same observers. All diagnostic disagreements were between ductal hyperplasia and atypical ductal hyperplasia. There was no intra-observer disagreement in the diagnosis of benign versus malignant disease.
conclusionsThe intra-observer variability in the diagnosis of the core needle biopsies of the breast by high-resolution, WSI was the same as conventional glass slide microscopy. These results suggest that, WSI could be used similar to CM for the initial diagnosis of breast biopsies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.