ReviewHistopathology2017
More than meets the eye: the changing face of histopathology.
Review in Histopathology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- DigitAb: Domain-Adaptive Cell Type Prediction Method from Light Microscopy Images.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Recent Advances in Artificial Intelligence for Precision Diagnosis and Treatment of Bladder Cancer: A Review.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Review
- Crohn's Disease: Basic Characteristics of the Disease, Diagnostic Methods, the Role of Biomarkers, and Analysis of Metalloproteinases: A Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Global Research Trends of Artificial Intelligence on Histopathological Images: A 20-Year Bibliometric Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- More than meets the eye: the changing face of histopathology.Histopathology · 2017Review
- Detecting residents at risk of attrition - A Singapore pathology residency's experience.Academic pathologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This personal reflection on trends in histopathology over the past 50 years draws upon experience of professional training and practice in the specialty in the UK. Developments during this period often resulted from new therapies (and their adverse effects) necessitating greater precision in the histopathological classification of disease, for which morphology alone can be insufficient. Conversely, histopathology has contributed to advances in our understanding of disease, leading directly to novel and more effective treatments. New infections, some involving histopathology in their discovery, have also led to fresh diagnostic challenges. Increasingly, patients have benefited from fundamental changes in professionalism in pathology. Through audit, external quality assurance, continuing professional development, standardized reporting, and increasing specialization, the consistency and reliability of histopathological diagnoses have steadily improved. Regarding the specialty's future, some now see rivalry between the morphological and molecular approaches to diagnosis and classification, particularly for neoplastic disease. An integrated strategy led by the specialty is more likely to strengthen histopathology and ultimately to have the greatest benefit for patients.
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.