ArticleJAMA dermatology2018
Accuracy of Digital Pathologic Analysis vs Traditional Microscopy in the Interpretation of Melanocytic Lesions.
Article in JAMA dermatology, 2018. 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.
- Advancements in Image-Based Artificial Intelligence in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Narrative Review.International journal of general medicine · 2026Review
- From Slide to Insight: The Emerging Alliance of Digital Pathology and AI in Melanoma Diagnostics.Cancers · 2025Review
- Robust ROI Detection in Whole Slide Images Guided by Pathologists' Viewing Patterns.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Early Diagnosis and Molecular Classification of Head and Neck Skin Cancers: A Multidisciplinary Approach.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Integrating Spatial and Morphological Characteristics into Melanoma Prognosis: A Computational Approach.Cancers · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence and skin cancer.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Review
- Implementing the Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis: Long-term effect of a simple educational intervention.JAAD international · 2023Article
- Quantitative Evaluation of Inflammatory Markers in Peri-Implantitis and Periodontitis Tissues: Digital vs. Manual Analysis-A Proof of Concept Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Article
- An analysis of pathologists' viewing processes as they diagnose whole slide digital images.Journal of pathology informatics · 2022Article
- Assessment of a Diagnostic Classification System for Management of Lesions to Exclude Melanoma.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- Multiplexed Immunohistochemistry and Digital Pathology as the Foundation for Next-Generation Pathology in Melanoma: Methodological Comparison and Future Clinical Applications.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Review
- Assessment of Second-Opinion Strategies for Diagnoses of Cutaneous Melanocytic Lesions.JAMA network open · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Use of digital whole-slide imaging (WSI) for dermatopathology in general has been noted to be similar to traditional microscopy (TM); however, concern has been noted that WSI is inferior for interpretation of melanocytic lesions. Since approximately 1 of every 4 skin biopsies is of a melanocytic lesion, the use of WSI requires verification before use in clinical practice. Objective: To compare pathologists' accuracy and reproducibility in diagnosing melanocytic lesions using Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis (MPATH-Dx) categories when analyzing by TM vs WSI. Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 87 pathologists in community-based and academic settings from 10 US states were randomized with stratification based on clinical experience to interpret in TM format 180 skin biopsy cases of melanocytic lesions, including 90 invasive melanoma, divided into 5 sets of 36 cases (phase 1). The pathologists were then randomized via stratified permuted block randomization with block size 2 to interpret cases in either TM (n = 46) or WSI format (n = 41), with each pathologist interpreting the same 36 cases on 2 separate occasions (phase 2). Diagnoses were categorized as MPATH-Dx categories I through V, with I indicating the least severe and V the most severe. Main Outcomes and Measures: Accuracy with respect to a consensus reference diagnosis and the reproducibility of repeated interpretations of the same cases. Results: Of the 87 pathologists in the study, 46% (40) were women and the mean (SD) age was 50.7 (10.2) years. Except for class III melanocytic lesions, the diagnostic categories showed no significant differences in diagnostic accuracy between TM and WSI interpretation. Discordance was lower among class III lesions for the TM interpretation arm (51%; 95% CI, 46%-57%) than for the WSI arm (61%; 95% CI, 53%-69%) (P = .05). This difference is likely to have clinical significance, because 6% of TM vs 11% of WSI class III lesions were interpreted as invasive melanoma. Reproducibility was similar between the traditional and digital formats overall (66.4%; 95% CI, 63.3%-69.3%; and 62.7%; 95% CI, 59.5%-65.7%, respectively), and for all classes, although class III showed a nonsignificant lower intraobserver agreement for digital. Significantly more mitotic figures were detected with TM compared with WSI: mean (SD) TM, 6.72 (2.89); WSI, 5.84 (2.56); P = .002. Conclusions and Relevance: Interpretive accuracy for melanocytic lesions was similar for WSI and TM slides except for class III lesions. We found no clinically meaningful differences in reproducibility for any of the diagnostic classes.
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.