Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25191620›Full record

ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2014

Validation of a novel robotic telepathology platform for neuropathology intraoperative touch preparations.

Michael J Thrall, Andreana L Rivera, Hidehiro Takei, Suzanne Z Powell

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. The Critical Value of Telepathology in the COVID-19 Era.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2023
    Review
  3. Integrating digital pathology into clinical practice.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2022
    Review
  4. Article
  5. 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 · 2020
    Article
  6. Article
  7. The Empirical Foundations of Telepathology: Evidence of Feasibility and Intermediate Effects.Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association · 2017
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Michael J ThrallDepartment of Pathology and Genomic Medicine, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Andreana L RiveraDepartment of Pathology and Genomic Medicine, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Hidehiro TakeiDepartment of Pathology and Genomic Medicine, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Suzanne Z PowellDepartment of Pathology and Genomic Medicine, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Methodist Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Intraoperative consultationneuropathologyremote robotic microscopytouch preparationvalidation

Identifiers

PMID25191620
PMCPMC4141358
OpenAlexW1972220739

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.