Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25535591›Full record

ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2014

Validation of a whole slide imaging system for primary diagnosis in surgical pathology: A community hospital experience.

Thomas P Buck, Rebecca Dilorio, Lauren Havrilla, Dennis G O'Neill

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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 36 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Integrating digital pathology into clinical practice.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2022
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Artificial intelligence (AI) and big data in cancer and precision oncology.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2020
    Review
  20. 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

4 authors.

Thomas P BuckDepartment of Pathology Eastern Connecticut Health Network, Manchester Memorial Hospital, 71 Haynes Street, Manchester, Connecticut, U.S.
Rebecca DilorioDepartment of Pathology Eastern Connecticut Health Network, Manchester Memorial Hospital, 71 Haynes Street, Manchester, Connecticut, U.S.
Lauren HavrillaDepartment of Pathology Eastern Connecticut Health Network, Manchester Memorial Hospital, 71 Haynes Street, Manchester, Connecticut, U.S.
Dennis G O'NeillDepartment of Pathology Eastern Connecticut Health Network, Manchester Memorial Hospital, 71 Haynes Street, Manchester, Connecticut, U.S.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Guidelines for validating whole slide imaging (WSI) for primary diagnosis in surgical pathology have been recommended by an expert panel commissioned by the College of American Pathologists. The implementation of such a system using these validation guidelines has not been reported from the community hospital setting. The objective was to implement a WSI system, validate each pathologist using the system and run the system in parallel with routine glass slide interpretation. Six pathologists re-reviewed approximately 300 previously diagnosed specimens each, divided equally between glass slides and digital images (scanned at ×20). Baseline intraobserver discordance rates (glass to glass) were calculated and compared to discordance rates between the original glass slide interpretation and the reviewed digital slide interpretation. A minimum of 3 months was used as the washout period. After validation, a subset of daily cases was diagnosed in parallel using traditional microscopy (TM) and WSI over an 8-month period. The TM and WSI discordance rates ranged from 3.3% to 13.3% and 2.1% to 10.1%, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference among the pathologists. The parallel study yielded similar rates of discordances. In our laboratory, after appropriate implementation and training, there was no difference between the WSI and TM methods.

Indexed as

Digital pathologytelepathologywhole slide imaging

Identifiers

PMID25535591
PMCPMC4260323

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.