ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2014
Validation of a novel robotic telepathology platform for neuropathology intraoperative touch preparations.
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 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Digital pathology systems enabling quality patient care.Genes, chromosomes & cancer · 2023Review
- The Critical Value of Telepathology in the COVID-19 Era.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2023Review
- Integrating digital pathology into clinical practice.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2022Review
- Remote Reporting from Home for Primary Diagnosis in Surgical Pathology: A Tertiary Oncology Center Experience during the COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of pathology informatics · 2021Article
- 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
- The Importance of eSlide Macro Images for Primary Diagnosis with Whole Slide Imaging.Journal of pathology informatics · 2018Article
- The Empirical Foundations of Telepathology: Evidence of Feasibility and Intermediate Effects.Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association · 2017Review
- Robotic Telecytology for Remote Cytologic Evaluation without an On-site Cytotechnologist or Cytopathologist: An Active Quality Assessment and Experience of Over 400 Cases.Journal of pathology informatics · 2017Article
- Pitfalls in the use of whole slide imaging for the diagnosis of central nervous system tumors: A pilot study in surgical neuropathology.Journal of pathology informatics · 2016Article
- Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic telepathology (RT) allows a remote pathologist to control and view a glass slide over the internet. This technology has been demonstrated to be effective on several platforms, but we present the first report on the validation of RT using the iScan Coreo Au whole slide imaging scanner.
methodsOne intraoperative touch preparation slide from each of 100 cases were examined twice (200 total cases) using glass slides and RT, with a 3 week washout period between viewings, on two different scanners at two remote sites. This included 75 consecutive neuropathology cases and 25 consecutive general surgical pathology cases. Interpretations were compared using intraobserver variability.
resultsOf the 200 total cases, one failed on RT. There were 47 total interpretive variances. Most of these were the result of less specific interpretations or an inability to identify scant diagnostic material on RT. Nine interpretive variances had potentially significant clinical implications (4.5%). Using the final diagnosis as a basis for comparison to evaluate these nine cases, three RT interpretations and three glass slide interpretations were considered to be discrepant. In the other three cases, both modalities were discrepant. This distribution of discrepancies indicates that underlying case difficulty, not the RT technology, probably accounts for these major variances. For the subset of 68 neoplastic neuropathology cases, the unweighted kappa of agreement between glass slides and RT was 0.68 (good agreement). RT took 225 s on average versus only 71 s per glass slide.
conclusionsThis validation demonstrates that RT using the iScan Coreo Au system is a reasonable method for supplying remote neuropathology expertise for the intraoperative interpretation of touch preparations, but is limited by the slowness of the robotics, crude focusing, and the challenge of determining where to examine the slide using small thumbnail images.
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.