Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33042602›Full record

ReviewJournal of pathology informatics2020

Display Characteristics and Their Impact on Digital Pathology: A Current Review of Pathologists' Future "Microscope".

Jacob T Abel, Peter Ouillette, Christopher L Williams, John Blau, Jerome Cheng, Keluo Yao, Winston Y Lee, Toby C Cornish, Ulysses G J Balis, David S McClintock

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of pathology informatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Considerations for digital pathology displays.Journal of pathology informatics · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Digital pathology structure and deployment in Veneto: a proof-of-concept study.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Integrating digital pathology into clinical practice.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2022
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
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

10 authors.

Jacob T AbelDepartment of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Peter OuilletteDepartment of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Christopher L WilliamsDepartment of Pathology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA.
John BlauDepartment of Pathology, University of Iowa, Iowa, USA.
Jerome ChengDepartment of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Keluo YaoDepartments of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Winston Y LeeDepartment of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Toby C CornishDepartment of Pathology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
Ulysses G J BalisDepartment of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
David S McClintockDepartment of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Digital displays (monitors) are an indispensable component of a pathologists' daily workflow, from writing reports, viewing whole-slide images, or browsing the Internet. Due to a paucity of literature and experience surrounding display use and standardization in pathology, the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) has currently restricted FDA-cleared whole-slide imaging systems to a specific model of display for each system, which at this time consists of only medical-grade (MG) displays. Further, given that a pathologists' display will essentially become their new surrogate "microscope," it becomes exceedingly important that all pathologists have a basic understanding of fundamental display properties and their functional consequences. This review seeks to: (a) define and summarize the current and emerging display technology, terminology, features, and regulation as they pertain to pathologists and review the current literature on the impact of different display types (e.g. MG vs. consumer off the shelf vs. professional grade) on pathologists' diagnostic performance and (b) discuss the impact of the recent digital pathology device componentization and the coronavirus disease 2019 public emergency on the pixel pathway and display use for remote digital pathology. Display technology has changed dramatically over the past 20 years and continues to change at a rapid rate. There is a paucity of published studies to date that investigate how display type affects pathologist performance, with more research necessary in order to develop standards and minimum specifications for displays in digital pathology. Given the complexity of modern displays, pathologists must become better informed regarding display technology if they wish to have more choice over their future "microscopes."

Indexed as

Color gamutconsumer-off-the-shelf displayscontrast ratiocoronavirus disease 2019digital pathologydisplay specificationsdisplay validationluminancemedical-grade displayspixel pathwayprofessional-grade displaystelepathology

Identifiers

PMID33042602
PMCPMC7518209

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.