ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2019
Breast Cancer Prognostic Factors in the Digital Era: Comparison of Nottingham Grade using Whole Slide Images and Glass Slides.
Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Technical and Diagnostic Issues in Whole Slide Imaging Published Validation Studies.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- A bottom-up initiated digital external quality assessment scheme for the state-of-the-art pathology in Sweden: reduced variability between pathology departments.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026Article
- CONTEST: A generalization of ONEST to estimate sample size for predictive augmented intelligence method validation studies.Journal of pathology informatics · 2025Article
- Article
- Digital Validation in Breast Cancer Needle Biopsies: Comparison of Histological Grade and Biomarker Expression Assessment Using Conventional Light Microscopy, Whole Slide Imaging, and Digital Image Analysis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Breast Ductal Carcinoma Grading: A Deep-Learning Model and General Pathologists' Assessment Approach.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Development and validation of an AI-enabled digital breast cancer assay to predict early-stage breast cancer recurrence within 6 years.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2022Article
- Defining the area of mitoses counting in invasive breast cancer using whole slide image.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2022Article
- Digital validation of breast biomarkers (ER, PR, AR, and HER2) in cytology specimens using three different scanners.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2022Article
- Accuracy and efficiency of an artificial intelligence tool when counting breast mitoses.Diagnostic pathology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo assess reproducibility and accuracy of overall Nottingham grade and component scores using digital whole slide images (WSIs) compared to glass slides.
methodsTwo hundred and eight pathologists were randomized to independently interpret 1 of 4 breast biopsy sets using either glass slides or digital WSI. Each set included 5 or 6 invasive carcinomas (22 total invasive cases). Participants interpreted the same biopsy set approximately 9 months later following a second randomization to WSI or glass slides. Nottingham grade, including component scores, was assessed on each interpretation, providing 2045 independent interpretations of grade. Overall grade and component scores were compared between pathologists (interobserver agreement) and for interpretations by the same pathologist (intraobserver agreement). Grade assessments were compared when the format (WSI vs. glass slides) changed or was the same for the two interpretations.
resultsNottingham grade intraobserver agreement was highest using glass slides for both interpretations (73%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 68%, 78%) and slightly lower but not statistically different using digital WSI for both interpretations (68%, 95% CI: 61%, 75%;
conclusionsPathologists' intraobserver agreement (reproducibility) is similar for Nottingham grade using glass slides or WSI. However, slightly lower agreement between pathologists suggests that verification of grade using digital WSI may be more challenging.
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.