ArticleThe American journal of surgical pathology2018
Diagnostic Efficiency in Digital Pathology: A Comparison of Optical Versus Digital Assessment in 510 Surgical Pathology Cases.
Article in The American journal of surgical pathology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The performance of digital microscopy for primary diagnosis in human pathology: a systematic review.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2019Pooled it
- Whole Slide Imaging Versus Microscopy for Primary Diagnosis in Surgical Pathology: A Multicenter Blinded Randomized Noninferiority Study of 1992 Cases (Pivotal Study).The American journal of surgical pathology · 2018Trial
- Validation of a Low-Cost Whole Slide Imaging System for Pathological Diagnosis of Gastric Ulcers in Biopsy Specimens by Pathology Residents.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2026Article
- Validation of a whole slide image management system for metabolic-associated steatohepatitis for clinical trials.The journal of pathology. Clinical research · 2024Article
- Digital pathology systems enabling quality patient care.Genes, chromosomes & cancer · 2023Review
- The slow-paced digital evolution of pathology: lights and shadows from a multifaceted board.Pathologica · 2023Review
- Faster than light (microscopy): superiority of digital pathology over microscopy for assessment of immunohistochemistry.Journal of clinical pathology · 2023Article
- Assessment of deep learning assistance for the pathological diagnosis of gastric cancer.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2022Article
- AI Model for Prostate Biopsies Predicts Cancer Survival.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Integrating digital pathology into clinical practice.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2022Review
- Measuring Digital Pathology Throughput and Tissue Dropouts.Journal of pathology informatics · 2022Article
- Validation of digital microscopy: Review of validation methods and sources of bias.Veterinary pathology · 2022Review
- Computational healthcare: Present and future perspectives (Review).Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2021Review
- Diagnostic Pitfalls of Digital Microscopy Versus Light Microscopy in Gastrointestinal Pathology: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2021Review
- Digital Versus Optical Diagnosis of Follicular Patterned Thyroid Lesions.Head and neck pathology · 2021Article
- Comparative Assessment of Digital Pathology Systems for Primary Diagnosis.Journal of pathology informatics · 2021Article
- Digital Pathology: Advantages, Limitations and Emerging Perspectives.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
- The NASSS-CAT Tools for Understanding, Guiding, Monitoring, and Researching Technology Implementation Projects in Health and Social Care: Protocol for an Evaluation Study in Real-World Settings.JMIR research protocols · 2020Article
- Artificial intelligence in digital breast pathology: Techniques and applications.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2020Review
- A Regulatory Science Initiative to Harmonize and Standardize Digital Pathology and Machine Learning Processes to Speed up Clinical Innovation to Patients.Journal of pathology informatics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prior work has shown that digital images and microscopic slides can be interpreted with comparable diagnostic accuracy. Although accuracy has been well-validated, the interpretative time for digital images has scarcely been studied and concerns about efficiency remain a major barrier to adoption. We investigated the efficiency of digital pathology when compared with glass slide interpretation in the diagnosis of surgical pathology biopsy and resection specimens. Slides were pulled from 510 surgical pathology cases from 5 organ systems (gastrointestinal, gynecologic, liver, bladder, and brain). Original diagnoses were independently confirmed by 2 validating pathologists. Diagnostic slides were scanned using the Philips IntelliSite Pathology Solution. Each case was assessed independently on digital and optical by 3 reading pathologists, with a ≥6 week washout period between modalities. Reading pathologists recorded assessment times for each modality; digital times included time to load the case. Diagnostic accuracy was determined based on whether a rendered diagnosis differed significantly from the original diagnosis. Statistical analysis was performed to assess for differences in interpretative times across modalities. All 3 reading pathologists showed comparable diagnostic accuracy across optical and digital modalities (mean major discordance rates with original diagnosis: 4.8% vs. 4.4%, respectively). Mean assessment times ranged from 1.2 to 9.1 seconds slower on digital versus optical. The slowest reader showed a significant learning effect during the course of the study so that digital assessment times decreased over time and were comparable with optical times by the end of the series. Organ site and specimen type did not significantly influence differences in interpretative times. In summary, digital image reading times compare favorably relative to glass slides across a variety of organ systems and specimen types. Mean increase in assessment time is 4 seconds/case. This time can be minimized with experience and may be further balanced by the improved ease of electronic chart access allowed by digital slide viewing, as well as quantitative assessments which can be expedited on digital images.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28877052What 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.