ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2021
Comparative Assessment of Digital Pathology Systems for Primary Diagnosis.
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 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Relevance of the College of American Pathologists guideline for validating whole slide imaging for diagnostic purposes to cytopathology.Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology · 2023Pooled it
- Practical considerations for pathologists when selecting digital pathology systems: an ESDIP guide.The Journal of pathology · 2026Review
- Comparison and image analysis of different file formats on whole-slide images for colorectal and non-small cell lung carcinomas.Journal of pathology informatics · 2026Article
- Automated HER2 Scoring with Uncertainty Quantification Using Lensfree Holography and Deep Learning.BME frontiers · 2026Article
- 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
- BlurryScope enables compact, cost-effective scanning microscopy for HER2 scoring using deep learning on blurry images.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Digital slide scanning at scale: Comparison of whole slide imaging devices in a clinical setting.Journal of pathology informatics · 2025Article
- An update on applications of digital pathology: primary diagnosis; telepathology, education and research.Diagnostic pathology · 2025Review
- [The model transferability of AI in digital pathology : Potential and reality].Pathologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Article
- Rapid Remote Online Evaluation in Endoscopic Diagnostics: An Analysis of Biopsy-Proven Respiratory Cytopathology.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Validation of Remote Digital Pathology based diagnostic reporting of Frozen Sections from home.Journal of pathology informatics · 2023Article
- Deep learning accelerates whole slide imaging for next-generation digital pathology applications.Light, science & applications · 2022Article
- Validation of a Portable Whole-Slide Imaging System for Frozen Section Diagnosis.Journal of pathology informatics · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite increasing interest in whole-slide imaging (WSI) over optical microscopy (OM), limited information on comparative assessment of various digital pathology systems (DPSs) is available. MATERIALS AND
methodsA comprehensive evaluation was undertaken to investigate the technical performance-assessment and diagnostic accuracy of four DPSs with an objective to establish the noninferiority of WSI over OM and find out the best possible DPS for clinical workflow.
resultsA total of 2376 digital images, 15,775 image reads (OM - 3171 + WSI - 12,404), and 6100 diagnostic reads (OM - 1245, WSI - 4855) were generated across four DPSs (coded as DPS: 1, 2, 3, and 4) using a total 240 cases (604 slides). Onsite technical evaluation revealed successful scan rate: DPS3 < DPS2 < DPS4 < DPS1; mean scanning time: DPS4 < DPS1 < DPS2 < DPS3; and average storage space: DPS3 < DPS2 < DPS1 < DPS4. Overall diagnostic accuracy, when compared with the reference standard for OM and WSI, was 95.44% (including 2.48% minor and 2.08% major discordances) and 93.32% (including 4.28% minor and 2.4% major discordances), respectively. The difference between the clinically significant discordances by WSI versus OM was 0.32%. Major discordances were observed mostly using DPS4 and least in DPS1; however, the difference was statistically insignificant. Almost perfect (κ ≥ 0.8)/substantial (κ = 0.6-0.8) inter/intra-observer agreement between WSI and OM was observed for all specimen types, except cytology. Overall image quality was best for DPS1 followed by DPS4. Mean digital artifact rate was 6.8% (163/2376 digital images) and maximum artifacts were noted in DPS2 (
conclusionWSI was noninferior to OM for all specimen types, except for cytology. Each DPS has its own pros and cons; however, DPS1 closely emulated the real-world clinical environment. This evaluation is intended to provide a roadmap to pathologists for the selection of the appropriate DPSs while adopting WSI.
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.