ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2021
Verification and Validation of Digital Pathology (Whole Slide Imaging) for Primary Histopathological Diagnosis: All Wales Experience.
Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Roche Digital Pathology Dx whole slide imaging system is comparable to traditional microscopy for primary diagnosis in surgical pathology.American journal of clinical pathology · 2025Article
- Variation within and between digital pathology and light microscopy for the diagnosis of histopathology slides: blinded crossover comparison study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Article
- Digital pathology, deep learning, and cancer: a narrative review.Translational cancer research · 2024Review
- A multi-class brain tumor grading system based on histopathological images using a hybrid YOLO and RESNET networks.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- High-plex immunofluorescence imaging and traditional histology of the same tissue section for discovering image-based biomarkers.Nature cancer · 2023Article
- Rapid Deployment of Whole Slide Imaging for Primary Diagnosis in Surgical Pathology at Stanford Medicine: Responding to Challenges of the COVID-19 Pandemic.Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine · 2023Article
- Virtual Versus Light Microscopy Usage among Students: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analytic Evidence in Medical Education.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Histology Image Viewer and Converter (HIVC): A High-Speed Freeware Software to View and Convert Whole Slide Histology Images.Computer methods in biomechanics and biomedical engineering. Imaging & visualization · 2023Article
- Article
- Digital Pathology Transformation in a Supraregional Germ Cell Tumour Network.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Validation of grading of non-invasive urothelial carcinoma by digital pathology for routine diagnosis.BMC cancer · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors at 12 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe study is aimed to verify Aperio AT2 scanner for reporting on the digital pathology platform (DP) and to validate the cohort of pathologists in the interpretation of DP for routine diagnostic histopathological services in Wales, United Kingdom. MATERIALS METHODS AND
resultsThis was a large multicenter study involving seven hospitals across Wales and unique with 22 (largest number) pathologists participating. 7491 slides from 3001 cases were scanned on Leica Aperio AT2 scanner and reported on digital workstations with Leica software of e-slide manager. A senior pathology fellow compared DP reports with authorized reports on glass slide (GS). A panel of expert pathologists reviewed the discrepant cases under multiheader microscope to establish ground truth. 2745 out of 3001 (91%) cases showed complete concordance between DP and GS reports. Two hundred and fifty-six cases showed discrepancies in diagnosis, of which 170 (5.6%) were deemed of no clinical significance by the review panel. There were 86 (2.9%) clinically significant discrepancies in the diagnosis between DP and GS. The concordance was raised to 97.1% after discounting clinically insignificant discrepancies. Ground truth lay with DP in 28 out of 86 clinically significant discrepancies and with GS in 58 cases. Sensitivity of DP was 98.07% (confidence interval [CI] 97.57-98.56%); for GS was 99.07% (CI 98.72-99.41%).
conclusionsWe concluded that Leica Aperio AT2 scanner produces adequate quality of images for routine histopathologic diagnosis. Pathologists were able to diagnose in DP with good concordance as with GS. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY: Strengths of this study - This was a prospective blind study. Different pathologists reported digital and glass arms at different times giving an ambience of real-time reporting. There was standardized use of software and hardware across Wales. A strong managerial support from efficiency through the technology group was a key factor for the implementation of the study. LIMITATIONS: This study did not include Cytopathology and
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.