ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2015
Diagnostic performance on briefly presented digital pathology images.
Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Eye tracking in digital pathology: A comprehensive literature review.Journal of pathology informatics · 2024Review
- Controllable Medical Image Generation via GAN.Journal of perceptual imaging · 2022Article
- Accuracy of Digital Pathologic Analysis vs Traditional Microscopy in the Interpretation of Melanocytic Lesions.JAMA dermatology · 2018Article
- The Use of Screencasts with Embedded Whole-Slide Scans and Hyperlinks to Teach Anatomic Pathology in a Supervised Digital Environment.Journal of pathology informatics · 2018Article
- The Holistic Processing Account of Visual Expertise in Medical Image Perception: A Review.Frontiers in psychology · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIdentifying new and more robust assessments of proficiency/expertise (finding new "biomarkers of expertise") in histopathology is desirable for many reasons. Advances in digital pathology permit new and innovative tests such as flash viewing tests and eye tracking and slide navigation analyses that would not be possible with a traditional microscope. The main purpose of this study was to examine the usefulness of time-restricted testing of expertise in histopathology using digital images.
methods19 novices (undergraduate medical students), 18 intermediates (trainees), and 19 experts (consultants) were invited to give their opinion on 20 general histopathology cases after 1 s and 10 s viewing times. Differences in performance between groups were measured and the internal reliability of the test was calculated.
resultsThere were highly significant differences in performance between the groups using the Fisher's least significant difference method for multiple comparisons. Differences between groups were consistently greater in the 10-s than the 1-s test. The Kuder-Richardson 20 internal reliability coefficients were very high for both tests: 0.905 for the 1-s test and 0.926 for the 10-s test. Consultants had levels of diagnostic accuracy of 72% at 1 s and 83% at 10 s.
conclusionsTime-restricted tests using digital images have the potential to be extremely reliable tests of diagnostic proficiency in histopathology. A 10-s viewing test may be more reliable than a 1-s test. Over-reliance on "at a glance" diagnoses in histopathology is a potential source of medical error due to over-confidence bias and premature closure.
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.