Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29619278›Full record

ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2018

Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine Whole Slide Imaging Connectathon at Digital Pathology Association Pathology Visions 2017.

David Clunie, Dan Hosseinzadeh, Mikael Wintell, David De Mena, Nieves Lajara, Marcial Garcia-Rojo, Gloria Bueno, Kiran Saligrama, Aaron Stearrett, David Toomey and 9 more

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Digital Pathology in Hematopathology: From Vision to Deployment.International journal of laboratory hematology · 2026
    Review
  3. Report on the 2025 DICOM WSI Connectathon.Journal of pathology informatics · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. The Iris File Extension.Journal of pathology informatics · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Integrating digital pathology into clinical practice.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2022
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Will Digital Pathology be as Disruptive as Genomics?Journal of pathology informatics · 2018
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

David CluniePixelmed Publishing, LLC, Bangor, USA.
Dan HosseinzadehPathcore, Toronto, Canada.
Mikael WintellDepartment of Regional Health, Region Västra Götalandsregionen, Sweden.
David De MenaDepartment of Pathology/UGC Anatomía Patológica, Hospital Universitario Puerta del Mar, Cádiz, Spain.
Nieves LajaraVISILAB, Grupo de Visión y Sistemas Inteligentes, E.T.S. Ingenieros Industriales, Universidad De Castilla-La Mancha, Ciudad Real, Spain.
Marcial Garcia-RojoDepartment of Pathology/UGC Anatomía Patológica, Hospital Universitario Puerta del Mar, Cádiz, Spain.
Gloria BuenoVISILAB, Grupo de Visión y Sistemas Inteligentes, E.T.S. Ingenieros Industriales, Universidad De Castilla-La Mancha, Ciudad Real, Spain.
Kiran SaligramaLeica Biosystems, Wetzlar, Germany.
Aaron StearrettLeica Biosystems, Wetzlar, Germany.
David ToomeyLeica Biosystems, Wetzlar, Germany.
Esther AbelsPhilips Digital Pathology Solutions, Best, The Netherlands.
Frank Van ApeldoornPhilips Digital Pathology Solutions, Best, The Netherlands.
Stephane LangevinPathcore, Toronto, Canada.
Sean NicholsPathcore, Toronto, Canada.
Joachim SchmidRoche-Ventana, Basel, Switzerland.
Uwe HorchnerRoche-Ventana, Basel, Switzerland.
Bruce BeckwithDepartment of Pathology, North Shore Medical Center, Salem, MA, USA.
Anil ParwaniDepartment of Pathology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Liron PantanowitzDepartment of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As digital pathology systems for clinical diagnostic work applications become mainstream, interoperability between these systems from different vendors becomes critical. For the first time, multiple digital pathology vendors have publicly revealed the use of the digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) standard file format and network protocol to communicate between separate whole slide acquisition, storage, and viewing components. Note the use of DICOM for clinical diagnostic applications is still to be validated in the United States. The successful demonstration shows that the DICOM standard is fundamentally sound, though many lessons were learned. These lessons will be incorporated as incremental improvements in the standard, provide more detailed profiles to constrain variation for specific use cases, and offer educational material for implementers. Future Connectathon events will expand the scope to include more devices and vendors, as well as more ambitious use cases including laboratory information system integration and annotation for image analysis, as well as more geographic diversity. Users should request DICOM features in all purchases and contracts. It is anticipated that the growth of DICOM-compliant manufacturers will likely also ease DICOM for pathology becoming a recognized standard and as such the regulatory pathway for digital pathology products.

Indexed as

Connectivitydigital imaging and communications in medicinedigital imaging and communications in medicine supplement 145digital imaging and communications in medicine webdigital pathologyinteroperabilitypicture archiving and communication systemvirtual microscopywhole slide imaging

Identifiers

PMID29619278
PMCPMC5869966

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.