ArticleHead and neck pathology2021
Digital Versus Optical Diagnosis of Follicular Patterned Thyroid Lesions.
Article in Head and neck pathology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence Tools for Supporting Histopathologic and Molecular Characterization of Gynecological Cancers: A Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Role of artificial intelligence in digital pathology for gynecological cancers.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024Review
- Optimizing the management of thyroid specimens to efficiently generate whole slide images for diagnosis.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2024Article
- Revisiting the utility of identifying nuclear grooves as unique nuclear changes by an object detector model.Journal of pathology and translational medicine · 2024Article
- Digital Pathology for Better Clinical Practice.Cancers · 2024Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo study the concordance between pathologists in the diagnosis of follicular patterned thyroid lesions using both digital and conventional optical settings. MATERIAL AND
methodsFive pathologists reviewed 50 hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides of follicular patterned thyroid lesions using both digital (the D-Sight 2.0 scanner and navigator viewer) and conventional optical instruments with washout interval time.
resultsThe mean concordance rate with the ground truth (GT) was similar between conventional optical and digital observation (83.2 and 85.2%, respectively). The most frequent reason for diagnostic discordance with GT on both systems was the evaluation of nuclear features (69.1% for conventional optical observation and 59.4% for digital observation). The intraobserver diagnostic concordance mean was 86.8%. Time for digital observation (mean time per case = 2.9 ± 0.8 min) was higher than that for conventional optical observation (mean time per case = 2.0 ± 0.7 min). Interobserver correlation of measurements was higher in the digital observation than the conventional optical observation.
conclusionConventional optical and digital observation settings showed a comparable accuracy for the diagnosis of follicular patterned thyroid nodules, as well as substantial intraobserver agreement and a significant improvement in the reproducibility of the measurements that support the use of digital diagnosis in thyroid pathology. The origins underlying the variability of the diagnosis were the same in both conventional optical microscopy and digital pathology systems.
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.