ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2021
Experience Reviewing Digital Pap Tests using a Gallery of Images.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Technical considerations during validation of the Genius® Digital Diagnostic System.Journal of pathology informatics · 2026Article
- Analysis of the sensitivity of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion Pap diagnosis and interobserver variability with the Hologic Genius Digital Diagnostics System.Cancer cytopathology · 2025Article
- Digital pathology structure and deployment in Veneto: a proof-of-concept study.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2024Article
- BestCyte® primary screening of 500 ThinPrep Pap Test thin-layers: 3 Cytologists' Interobserver diagnostic concordance with predicate manual microscopy relative to Truth Reference diagnoses defining NILM, ASCUS+, LSIL+, and ASCH+ thresholds for specificity, sensitivity, and equivalency grading.Journal of pathology informatics · 2023Article
- A review of web-based application of online learning in pathology and laboratory medicine.Journal of pathology informatics · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHologic is developing a digital cytology platform. An educational website was launched for users to review these digitized Pap test cases. The aim of this study was to analyze data captured from this website. MATERIALS AND
methodsThinPrep
results51,289 cases were reviewed by 918 reviewers. Cytotechnologists spent less time (M [Median] = 65.0 s) than pathologists (M = 82.2 s) reviewing cases (
conclusionsWebsite participation provided feedback about how cytologists interact with a digital platform when reviewing cases. These data suggest that digital Pap test review when comprised of an image gallery displaying diagnostically relevant objects is quick and easy to interpret. The high diagnostic concordance of digital Pap tests with reference diagnoses can be attributed to high image quality with volumetric scanning, image gallery format, and ability for users to freely navigate the entire digital slide.
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.