ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2016
Pitfalls in the use of whole slide imaging for the diagnosis of central nervous system tumors: A pilot study in surgical neuropathology.
Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- The performance of digital microscopy for primary diagnosis in human pathology: a systematic review.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2019Pooled it
- 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
- Intraoperative Touch Imprint Cytology of Brain Neoplasms: A Useful High-Diagnostic Tool in 93 Consecutive Cases; Differential Diagnoses, Pitfalls, and Traps.Analytical cellular pathology (Amsterdam) · 2024Article
- Loss of fidelity in scanned digital images compared to glass slides of brain tumors resected using cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator.Brain pathology (Zurich, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- The histopathological diagnosis of atypical meningioma: glass slide versus whole slide imaging for grading assessment.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 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 Whole-slide Digitally Imaged Melanocytic Lesions: Does Z-Stack Scanning Improve Diagnostic Accuracy?Journal of pathology informatics · 2019Article
- Whole slide imaging compared with light microscopy for primary diagnosis in surgical neuropathology: a validation study.Annals of Saudi medicineArticle
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhole slide imaging (WSI) finds increasingly higher value in everyday surgical pathology in addition to its well-established use for educational and research purposes. However, its diagnostic utility, especially in subspecialty settings such as neuropathology, is not fully validated. Neuropathology practice is unique with smaller overall tissue size and frequent need for high-power evaluation. In addition, tumor grade is an integral part of the initial diagnosis. The purpose of this study is to assess the feasibility of primary pathology diagnosis of surgical neuropathology specimens using WSI. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe reviewed consecutive surgical neuropathology cases diagnosed in our institution during a 2-month period and identified a single diagnostic slide, which was scanned at 40× magnification. Two neuropathologists who were blinded to the original diagnoses reviewed the whole slide image and rendered a diagnosis including tumor grade when applicable. They reviewed the single diagnostic slide after a wash-out period. Intra- and inter-observer discrepancies, as well as reasons for discrepancies, were evaluated.
resultsThe concordance rates were 94.9% and 88% for two neuropathologists. Two critical issues leading to discrepancies were identified: (1) identification of mitoses and (2) recognition of nuclear details.
conclusionsGiven the current study is exclusively for surgical neuropathology cases, an all-encompassing conclusion about the utility of WSI for diagnostic purposes may not be available. Nevertheless, pathologists should be aware of the potential pitfalls due to identification of mitotic figures and nuclear details. We recommend independent validation for each subspecialty of pathology to identify subspecialty-specific concerns, so they can be properly addressed.
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.