Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34796679›Full record

ArticleThe journal of pathology. Clinical research2022

Understanding the ethical and legal considerations of Digital Pathology.

Cheryl Coulter, Francis McKay, Nina Hallowell, Lisa Browning, Richard Colling, Philip Macklin, Tom Sorell, Muhammad Aslam, Gareth Bryson, Darren Treanor and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of pathology. Clinical research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. The ethical challenges of artificial intelligence-driven digital pathology.The journal of pathology. Clinical research · 2022
    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

11 authors.

Cheryl CoulterDepartment of Cellular Pathology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1516-9541
Francis McKayThe Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities and the Ethox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Nina HallowellThe Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities and the Ethox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Lisa BrowningDepartment of Cellular Pathology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Richard CollingDepartment of Cellular Pathology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Philip MacklinDepartment of Cellular Pathology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Tom SorellDepartment of Politics and International Studies, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Muhammad AslamDepartment of Histopathology, Glangwilli Hospital, Hywel Dda University Health Board, Carmarthen, Wales, UK.
Gareth BrysonDepartment of Pathology, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.
Darren TreanorDepartment of Pathology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Clare VerrillDepartment of Cellular Pathology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4905-8233

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Digital Pathology (DP) is a platform which has the potential to develop a truly integrated and global pathology community. The generation of DP data at scale creates novel challenges for the histopathology community in managing, processing, and governing the use of these data. The current understanding of, and confidence in, the legal and ethical aspects of DP by pathologists is unknown. We developed an electronic survey (e-survey), comprising 22 questions, with input from the Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath) Digital Pathology Working Group. The e-survey was circulated via e-mail and social media (Twitter) through the RCPath Digital Pathology Working Group network, RCPath Trainee Committee network, the Pathology image data Lake for Analytics, Knowledge and Education (PathLAKE) digital pathology consortium, National Pathology Imaging Co-operative (NPIC), local contacts, and to the membership of both The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland and the British Division of the International Academy of Pathology (BDIAP). Between 14 July 2020 and 6 September 2020, we collected 198 responses representing a cross section of histopathologists, including individuals with experience of DP research. We ascertained that, in the UK, DP is being used for diagnosis, research, and teaching, and that the platform is enabling data sharing. Our survey demonstrated that there is often a lack of confidence and understanding of the key issues of consent, legislation, and ethical guidelines. Of 198 respondents, 82 (41%) did not know when the use of digital scanned slide images would fall under the relevant legislation and 93 (47%) were 'Not confident at all' in their interpretation of consent for scanned slide images in research. With increasing uptake of DP, a working knowledge of these areas is essential but histopathologists often express a lack of confidence in these topics. The need for specific training in these areas is highlighted by the findings of this study.

Indexed as

Pathology, ClinicalHumansIrelandPathologistsUnited KingdomDigital Pathologyethicsgovernancehistopathologylegaltraining

Identifiers

PMID34796679
PMCPMC8822384

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.