ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2022
The need for measurement science in digital pathology.
Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- GrandQC adaptation as an artificial intelligence tool for quantitative artifact detection in hematoxylin and eosin whole-slide images-Simulation of quality control biopsies day.Journal of pathology informatics · 2026Article
- The critical role of standards for AI in digital pathology: Digital Pathology Association Concept Paper.Journal of pathology informatics · 2026Article
- [Digital, DICOM, diagnostics-unity over chaos : Data communication in digital pathology].Pathologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Smart Lies and Sharp Eyes: Pragmatic Artificial Intelligence for Cancer Pathology: Promise, Pitfalls, and Access Pathways.Cancers · 2026Review
- Digital neuropathology of neurodegenerative disorders: Foundations, research advances, and future directions.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025Review
- Use of quality checks and processes across digital histopathology: an initial survey from the Bigpicture consortium.Journal of clinical pathology · 2025Article
- Innovative approach for the qualitative-quantitative assessment of neurodevelopment biomarkers research in placenta tissue using immunohistochemistry digital image analysis.Biology methods & protocols · 2025Article
- VS-FPM: Large-Format, Label-Free Virtual Histopathology Microscopy.BME frontiers · 2025Article
- A multicenter study to evaluate the analytical precision by pathologists using the Aperio GT 450 DX.Journal of pathology informatics · 2024Article
- Review
- Calibration and Modeling of the Semmes-Weinstein Monofilament for Diabetic Foot Management.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Modelling digital health data: The ExaMode ontology for computational pathology.Journal of pathology informatics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pathology services experienced a surge in demand during the COVID-19 pandemic. Digitalisation of pathology workflows can help to increase throughput, yet many existing digitalisation solutions use non-standardised workflows captured in proprietary data formats and processed by black-box software, yielding data of varying quality. This study presents the views of a UK-led expert group on the barriers to adoption and the required input of measurement science to improve current practices in digital pathology. Methods: With an aim to support the UK's efforts in digitalisation of pathology services, this study comprised: (1) a review of existing evidence, (2) an online survey of domain experts, and (3) a workshop with 42 representatives from healthcare, regulatory bodies, pharmaceutical industry, academia, equipment, and software manufacturers. The discussion topics included sample processing, data interoperability, image analysis, equipment calibration, and use of novel imaging modalities. Findings: The lack of data interoperability within the digital pathology workflows hinders data lookup and navigation, according to 80% of attendees. All participants stressed the importance of integrating imaging and non-imaging data for diagnosis, while 80% saw data integration as a priority challenge. 90% identified the benefits of artificial intelligence and machine learning, but identified the need for training and sound performance metrics.Methods for calibration and providing traceability were seen as essential to establish harmonised, reproducible sample processing, and image acquisition pipelines. Vendor-neutral data standards were seen as a "must-have" for providing meaningful data for downstream analysis. Users and vendors need good practice guidance on evaluation of uncertainty, fitness-for-purpose, and reproducibility of artificial intelligence/machine learning tools. All of the above needs to be accompanied by an upskilling of the pathology workforce. Conclusions: Digital pathology requires interoperable data formats, reproducible and comparable laboratory workflows, and trustworthy computer analysis software. Despite high interest in the use of novel imaging techniques and artificial intelligence tools, their adoption is slowed down by the lack of guidance and evaluation tools to assess the suitability of these techniques for specific clinical question. Measurement science expertise in uncertainty estimation, standardisation, reference materials, and calibration can help establishing reproducibility and comparability between laboratory procedures, yielding high quality data and providing higher confidence in diagnosis.
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.