ArticleBMC medical education2016
Learning pathology using collaborative vs. individual annotation of whole slide images: a mixed methods trial.
Article in BMC medical education, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Adaptive tutorials versus web-based resources in radiology: a mixed methods analysis in junior doctors of efficacy and engagement.BMC medical education · 2020Trial
- Blended and digital approaches in histology and pathology teaching: A scoping review.Anatomical sciences education · 2026Article
- Whole slide imaging for rapid treatment decision-making and education in renal pathology.Clinical and experimental nephrology · 2025Article
- The Impact of Traditional and Virtual Microscopy on Students' Learning of Histology: A Comparative Study.Cureus · 2025Article
- Peer creation and sharing of mnemonics in collaborative documents for pathology education: a pilot study.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- An international collaborative approach to learning histology using a virtual microscope.Anatomia, histologia, embryologia · 2023Article
- e-Learning for Instruction and to Improve Reproducibility of Scoring Tumor-Stroma Ratio in Colon Carcinoma: Performance and Reproducibility Assessment in the UNITED Study.JMIR formative research · 2021Article
- Sharing Notes Is Encouraged: Annotating and Cocreating with Hypothes.is and Google Docs.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2021Article
- Virtual microscopy enhances the reliability and validity in histopathology curriculum: Practical guidelines.MedEdPublish (2016) · 2019Article
- Pushed Across the Digital Divide: COVID-19 Accelerated Pathology Training onto a New Digital Learning Curve.Academic pathologyArticle
- Introduction of a Combined Gastrointestinal Histopathology Laboratory Exercise into an Undergraduate Medical School Curriculum.Missouri 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudents in biomedical disciplines require understanding of normal and abnormal microscopic appearances of human tissues (histology and histopathology). For this purpose, practical classes in these disciplines typically use virtual microscopy, viewing digitised whole slide images in web browsers. To enhance engagement, tools have been developed to enable individual or collaborative annotation of whole slide images within web browsers. To date, there have been no studies that have critically compared the impact on learning of individual and collaborative annotations on whole slide images.
methodsJunior and senior students engaged in Pathology practical classes within Medical Science and Medicine programs participated in cross-over trials of individual and collaborative annotation activities. Students' understanding of microscopic morphology was compared using timed online quizzes, while students' perceptions of learning were evaluated using an online questionnaire.
resultsFor senior medical students, collaborative annotation of whole slide images was superior for understanding key microscopic features when compared to individual annotation; whilst being at least equivalent to individual annotation for junior medical science students. Across cohorts, students agreed that the annotation activities provided a user-friendly learning environment that met their flexible learning needs, improved efficiency, provided useful feedback, and helped them to set learning priorities. Importantly, these activities were also perceived to enhance motivation and improve understanding.
conclusionCollaborative annotation improves understanding of microscopic morphology for students with sufficient background understanding of the discipline. These findings have implications for the deployment of annotation activities in biomedical curricula, and potentially for postgraduate training in Anatomical Pathology.
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.