ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2017
A Randomized Study Comparing Digital Imaging to Traditional Glass Slide Microscopy for Breast Biopsy and Cancer Diagnosis.
Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic concordance and discordance in digital pathology: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of clinical pathology · 2021Pooled it
- The performance of digital microscopy for primary diagnosis in human pathology: a systematic review.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2019Pooled it
- Effects of Prior Diagnosis on Second Opinions and Pathologist Viewing Behaviors: Results from a Randomized Trial in Breast Pathology.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026Trial
- Roche Digital Pathology Dx whole slide imaging system is comparable to traditional microscopy for primary diagnosis in surgical pathology.American journal of clinical pathology · 2025Article
- Variation within and between digital pathology and light microscopy for the diagnosis of histopathology slides: blinded crossover comparison study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Article
- A multicenter study to evaluate the analytical precision by pathologists using the Aperio GT 450 DX.Journal of pathology informatics · 2024Article
- A BERT-GNN Approach for Metastatic Breast Cancer Prediction Using Histopathology Reports.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Pathologist pupil dilation reflects experience level and difficulty in diagnosing medical images.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2023Article
- An interpretable decision-support model for breast cancer diagnosis using histopathology images.Journal of pathology informatics · 2023Article
- End-to-End diagnosis of breast biopsy images with transformers.Medical image analysis · 2022Article
- DigiPatICS: Digital Pathology Transformation of the Catalan Health Institute Network of 8 Hospitals-Planification, Implementation, and Preliminary Results.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Validation of digital microscopy: Review of validation methods and sources of bias.Veterinary pathology · 2022Review
- Lost in digitization - A systematic review about the diagnostic test accuracy of digital pathology solutions.Journal of pathology informatics · 2022Review
- More scanning, but not zooming, is associated with diagnostic accuracy in evaluating digital breast pathology slides.Journal of vision · 2021Article
- Integrated digital pathology at scale: A solution for clinical diagnostics and cancer research at a large academic medical center.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021Article
- Deep Feature Representations for Variable-Sized Regions of Interest in Breast Histopathology.IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics · 2021Article
- Assessment of Machine Learning of Breast Pathology Structures for Automated Differentiation of Breast Cancer and High-Risk Proliferative Lesions.JAMA network open · 2019Article
- Breast Cancer Prognostic Factors in the Digital Era: Comparison of Nottingham Grade using Whole Slide Images and Glass Slides.Journal of pathology informatics · 2019Article
- Reliability of deceased-donor procurement kidney biopsy images uploaded in United Network for Organ Sharing.Clinical transplantation · 2018Article
- Detection and classification of cancer in whole slide breast histopathology images using deep convolutional networks.Pattern recognition · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDigital whole slide imaging may be useful for obtaining second opinions and is used in many countries. However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires verification studies.
methodsPathologists were randomized to interpret one of four sets of breast biopsy cases during two phases, separated by ≥9 months, using glass slides or digital format (sixty cases per set, one slide per case,
resultsSixty-five percent of responding pathologists were eligible, and 252 consented to randomization; 208 completed Phase I (115 glass, 93 digital); and 172 completed Phase II (86 glass, 86 digital). Accuracy was slightly higher using glass compared to digital format and varied by category: invasive carcinoma, 96% versus 93% (
conclusionsIn this large randomized study, digital format interpretations were similar to glass slide interpretations of benign and invasive cancer cases. However, cases in the middle of the spectrum, where more inherent variability exists, may be more problematic in digital format. Future studies evaluating the effect these findings exert on clinical practice and patient outcomes are required.
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.